No upgrade in base storage after ~6 years? Okay Apple.

[motrek]

Pay the Apple tax or switch brands. What you are complaining about has been Apple’s modus operandi for years. This isn’t a surprise to you. And the fact that you are still looking at the new model Apple brand tells me it isn’t as big a deal as your thread suggests.

Actually, that's not really true, or at least not in my case. Before the 2010 MacBook Airs, I had a polycarbonate MacBook. That allowed you to upgrade the RAM and hard drive with commodity PC parts, and upgrading was easier than on any PC laptop I had ever owned. (Now that I think about it, before I sold that laptop in 2010, I had upgraded its storage to a 128GB SSD. So, that's right, 10 years ago I had a MacBook with the same size SSD as the one that's coming in base-model MacBooks today.)

I bought the 2010 MacBook Air, base configuration of 2GB/64GB, which was more than enough for all the programs I wanted at the time (which has basically just been XCode and a web browser for the last 12 years). That configuration did start getting tight on RAM in ~2014, so I happily upgraded to a new base-model Air which was 4GB/128GB. And that configuration worked well until about 6-12 months ago.

So now I'm looking to do my regular thing of upgrading to a new MacBook and am finding that the base configuration is not suitable for my needs (which haven't changed) right now, much less in the 4-5 years that I would hope to keep the laptop, as I have kept my other Airs. That has not happened to me in the last 12 years, which is when I switched to Apple. So you can't tell me that this situation has been Apple's MO for years. It hasn't.

As for my concerns not being as big a deal as the thread suggests, here's the problem. I'm an iOS app developer so I'm pretty much locked into Apple at this point. I was happy to be locked in for most of the last 12 years. The 2010 MacBook Air (11") design was brilliant and I would have paid more for it. There was nothing comparable in the PC world. I was happy to buy my quad-core Mac Mini because it compared well to powerful desktop PCs at the time (2012) but it was small and quiet and looked/looks awesome.

Now I'm getting to be pretty bitter about being locked into the Apple ecosystem. Their base model laptops are no longer acceptable for what I consider a pretty lightweight workload--some web browsing, and some light development of what are, frankly, some pretty small iOS apps.

And desktops--jesus. Again, my quad-core 2012 Mac Mini was a pretty potent machine in 2012. Four cores was as many as you could get on any PC at the time. But now I'm looking at a situation where my Mini will likely fall off of Apple's support list next year and I'll have to "upgrade." And what am I going to upgrade to? For $800, Apple wants to sell me a machine that's barely 30% faster than my 2012 model, it comes with a completely-unusable amount of soldered-on storage, and its integrated graphics struggles to drive a 4K display in HiDPI mode which is a perfectly standard thing that people do in 2019.

I mean, it's laughable. Do you know what kind of PC you can build right now for $800, i.e., the base price of a Mac Mini? I just checked, for less money you can put together a machine with twice as many cores, twice as much [and faster] RAM, four times as much storage, and a discrete graphics card.

And before you say "oh but you've always been able to build a cheaper PC with higher specs," no, that's not actually true. It wasn't always possible, and even when it was possible, it wasn't possible to nearly the degree that it is now. Every time I read about a new AMD Ryzen processor or a new generation of Nvidia graphics chips (which can be used for some amazing work in machine learning these days) I kick myself for the stupid situation I've locked myself into.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

[Endless ranting]

I mean, it's laughable. Do you know what kind of PC you can build right now for $800, i.e., the base price of a Mac Mini? I just checked, for less money you can put together a machine with twice as many cores, twice as much [and faster] RAM, four times as much storage, and a discrete graphics card.


[Endless ranting continues]

Wow, Apple computers are more expensive than Windows PCs for the same specs. Now that’s new.

It’s very simple: you want more storage, pay up. You know you’re getting less RAM, and cores and whatever. It’s been like this ever since the Macintosh was released back in 1984.

 

[motrek]

Wow, Apple computers are more expensive than Windows PCs for the same specs. Now that’s new.

It’s very simple: you want more storage, pay up. You know you’re getting less RAM, and cores and whatever. It’s been like this ever since the Macintosh was released back in 1984.

No. Did you read my post? That hasn't always been true. When I bought my 2012 Mac Mini, it had a quad-core processor. That was as many cores as you could get on a consumer CPU at the time. I upgraded the RAM and storage with PC parts and had a computer that was pretty comparable to any high-end desktop PC (except for the graphics obviously) for not that much more money.

When I bought my 2014 MacBook Air, its 4GB/128GB storage was pretty much standard for laptops in the same price range, plus it was thinner and lighter and smaller and quieter and got better battery life than almost all PC laptops regardless of price.

Fast forward to now, Apple is still selling 128GB as standard base-model storage and everybody else (except Microsoft apparently) has moved on. Look at comparable PC laptops and there isn't a single thing that Apple wins at. Apple's thing used to be "okay you might get less specs for more money, but our stuff is thin and light and quiet" but that's no longer the case anymore. PC vendors have caught up and for the past several years you've been able to get a Dell or whatever that's just as small and thin and light and quiet as a MacBook Air, plus it has better battery life and pretty much better everything-else.

I mean, seriously, I mean this with 100% honesty, what's a single advantage that a MacBook Air has over a Dell XPS 13? Fingerprint sensor, I guess? Webcam at the top of the screen instead of the bottom...?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and let me tell you how excited I am about buying one of Apple's new keyboards... not because I think typing on them is bad, but because of the potential repair bill... I see they've extended their warranties to 4 years but, typing this on a laptop that's almost 6 years old, that's not THAT much comfort...

 

[Mainsail]

MacOS

 

[hardax]

It’s been said 1000 times before so here is 1001. Apple’s storage and ram minimums on their laptops are embarrassing and as far as I’m concerned makes me think less of them as a brand. Money grabbers.

 

[Mainsail]

This comparison has been going on forever. Apple products have always been more expensive than other manufactures when comparing specs. Of course, you generally get better performance from a Mac than a Windows machine with comparable specs.

Apple knows there are customers for MacBooks with 128GB storage and 8GB RAM. I am one of them, and at $900 on sale at BB, it seems like a pretty good value to me. I use Apple's Apps (Mail, Calendar, Notes, Photos, Reminders, Music, iMovie, Safari, etc..) plus productivity Apps (iWork and MS Office). This satisfies all of my needs, and I still have 70GB available.

It might not be right for other people, and maybe they should look elsewhere. But, I would not underestimate the number of people that are very satisfied with the entry level MBA.

 

[motrek]

This comparison has been going on forever. Apple products have always been more expensive than other manufactures when comparing specs. Of course, you generally get better performance from a Mac than a Windows machine with comparable specs.

Apple knows there are customers for MacBooks with 128GB storage and 8GB RAM. I am one of them, and at $900 on sale at BB, it seems like a pretty good value to me. I use Apple's Apps (Mail, Calendar, Notes, Photos, Reminders, Music, iMovie, Safari, etc..) plus productivity Apps (iWork and MS Office). This satisfies all of my needs, and I still have 70GB available.

It might not be right for other people, and maybe they should look elsewhere. But, I would not underestimate the number of people that are very satisfied with the entry level MBA.

Yup, well, I guess my situation may be unique.

I was one of those people who was very happy with the base-configuration MacBook Air in 2010... that laptop lasted me 4 years... then I was very happy with the base-configuration MacBook Air in 2014... that one lasted me 6 years. When I bought each of those laptops the amount of RAM and storage seemed like much more than enough, and it was.

Now I'm in a situation where I'm about to buy another and the base configuration storage isn't enough (I've run low with 128GB twice in the last two months) and now I'm actually pretty nervous that 8GB of RAM isn't enough either. I've been trying out 8GB of RAM in my Mac Mini over the last several days and the memory pressure has been in the yellow several times. So that's not ideal. And I'm even using an ad blocker. If I wasn't using the ad blocker, there's no way 8GB would be enough.

Again, can't really stress enough that I am not demanding of my computers. I don't do anything like video editing or running VMs. My workload has not changed in the last 12 years. Mainly I have a web browser open with 6-7 tabs usually and I develop a handful of iOS apps, most of which are only 5 or 10 thousand lines of code and don't rely on any non-Apple frameworks or anything. Basically it's the lightest workload you can run with XCode and still be doing something useful. And this worked well with base-model MacBook Airs for the last 10 years. But now here I am, facing the ridiculous Apple tax for more storage and possibly more memory.

Maybe my problem is mostly with XCode. It has been ballooning in size. If I didn't have to use XCode then my 2014 Mac Mini would still be more than enough for me.

Interestingly, I just checked and the base model MacBook Pro came with a 120GB hard drive in 2007 and that was upgraded several times to the point where the base model came with a 500GB hard drive in 2012 (after which, Apple switched to SSDs). So Apple was able to keep up with regular advances in technology and storage capacity as recently as 2012. And they also clearly didn't think that 120GB was "good enough" for a base configuration as recently as 2008 (when the base configuration was upgraded to 200GB). So the base configuration in 2019 has less capacity than the base configuration from 2008. I understand that it's an SSD instead of a hard drive, but capacity increases and price decreases have followed a similar trajectory. It's just that Apple apparently doesn't feel any motivation to share those advances with its customer base, even tough they did back in the 2007-2012 timeframe.

 

[dogslobber]

a MacBook Air is a laptop for students and university its not meant for a lot of coding in non school environment. most students have 128gb enough storage. so don't blame apple rather go for a higher space option or buy a MacBook Pro

Don't blame Apple? But they're the charlatans who SELL the 128GB SSD model so why would they be blame free?
[automerge]1572826391[/automerge]

I was going to say that I've had 128GB laptops for years and they're enough for the majority of people and you're bitching for no reason etc.

The only reason Apple don't offer 64GB MBAs is that you can't really get 64GB SSDs anymore as they stopped making them for mass production. When the same happens to 128GB SSDs then Apple will be forced to offer the 256GB as base model. But it's not a decision they will enthusiastically make.

 

[OnawaAfrica]

anyway if u don't like the 128gb model then don't buy it instead of crying that the lowest model is to small space -.-
me I had in university only a 128gb model and it was totally enauhgt for my self

 

[sracer]

I have a 2014 MacBook Air (11"), base model, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD.

It has gotten to the point where I'm frequently running out of RAM. It's a shame. For 4+ years I was able to run Safari and XCode at the same time comfortably but I guess software just gets bigger. Annoying, but here we are.

So now I'm looking at a 2019 MacBook Air and see that the base model has 8GB RAM (probably enough for a while) but still only 128GB of storage.

WTF? No upgrade to the base model after 5-6 years? I have to pay $200 extra to get some more storage? I know Apple's MO is to cheap out on storage space but this seems ridiculous.

People complain about how much storage the base models of iPhones had (16GB was ridiculous towards the end) but the longest it took between doubling their storage was 4 years (iPhone 5 to iPhone 7).

You'd think that after waiting 5-6 years to buy a new laptop I could expect some more storage. The new MBA has a bigger screen, twice the screen resolution, twice the RAM, a processor that's 30% faster (well, okay, that's not that impressive)... and exactly the same storage. Great.

I know this is an old-man-yells-at-clouds post, thanks for humoring me.

😂 🤪 Bonus points for self-awareness.

This is how Apple hides the price increase on their devices. As time goes by, there is an increased need for storage greater than the base amount which increases the likelihood that they'll pony up for the up-charge.

If they increased the base storage amount and raised the price, Apple's defenders will say that people shouldn't be forced to pay more for storage they don't need.

If Apple's up-charging wasn't obscene, few would complain. $100 to upgrade to 256GB, $200 to go from 128 to 512GB etc.

I have found it extremely handy to have an SD card slot on my 2017 13" MBA. I didn't realize how much I could use it (since my previous MBA was a 2014 11" 4GB/128GB model which didn't have the slot). I just bought that 13" MBA about 4 months ago so I'm set for quite a few years, but when the time comes to replace it, I doubt it'll be another Apple notebook.

 

[motrek]

😂 🤪 Bonus points for self-awareness.

This is how Apple hides the price increase on their devices. As time goes by, there is an increased need for storage greater than the base amount which increases the likelihood that they'll pony up for the up-charge.

If they increased the base storage amount and raised the price, Apple's defenders will say that people shouldn't be forced to pay more for storage they don't need.

If Apple's up-charging wasn't obscene, few would complain. $100 to upgrade to 256GB, $200 to go from 128 to 512GB etc.

I have found it extremely handy to have an SD card slot on my 2017 13" MBA. I didn't realize how much I could use it (since my previous MBA was a 2014 11" 4GB/128GB model which didn't have the slot). I just bought that 13" MBA about 4 months ago so I'm set for quite a few years, but when the time comes to replace it, I doubt it'll be another Apple notebook.

Cheaper upgrade prices would be nice. Making this stuff user-upgradeable would be even better. I know it's never going to happen but Apple wasn't always so upgrade-averse. MacBooks from ~10 years ago were some of the easiest computers to upgrade ever.

People (myself included) have defended Apple's decision to solder RAM onto motherboards by saying it results in size and weight savings, which I do still believe. But Dell is able to make a laptop that's just as thin and light as any MacBook and it has user-upgradeable storage in the form of an M.2 SSD. And the storage on Microsoft's latest Surface laptop is also user-upgradeable. So there's no reason why Apple couldn't also have such a feature, other than they want to sell something to you for $200 that you could buy on the open market for $40. Annoying.

As for offloading stuff via the SD card slot, or otherwise to external storage, I already do that. In terms of my own files, I keep precious few on my laptop. Usually only around 2 or 3 gigabytes at most. Otherwise all my files that I'm not actively working with are kept on an external hard drive. So in terms of storage that I have control over, I'm already using a minimal amount. The stuff that takes up the most space on my laptop's internal drive is XCode (and I have no control over how big that is) and the local backup of my iPhone, which I consider essential and I can't really relocate to anywhere else. And I don't even have that much stuff on my phone.

As I wrote a few posts ago, back in 2008, Apple decided that 120GB of storage wasn't enough for their base model of laptop and upgraded the base configuration to 200GB.

So it's a sad state of affairs that we've had 12 years of increasing software and file sizes but Apple has gone backwards in terms of how much storage is in their base configurations.

 

[Mainsail]

The upgrade premium for storage is clearly a profit maximizing up-sale pricing strategy. If it wasn't a successful strategy (from a monetary standpoint), Apple would not do it. If you don't like the pricing, you can buy another computer with better specs at a lower price. But, beware of spec comparisons. In the past, you needed more storage space on a PC because of bloatware. Maybe this is not true anymore. I really don't know. Also, Microsoft charges $300 to upgrade the Surface Pro from 128GB to 256GB, so you might not be getting a better deal if you switch.

I am not defending the pricing strategy. It does feel like gouging. But, I do believe there are a fair number of people that can get by just fine with an entry level MBA that has 128GB. I am one of them. Two of my adult kids have entry level MBAs with 128 GB storage, and they have no problems with capacity. One is a college student. The other graduated from college and is working. My middle son, on the other hand, does need more capacity and power. He does a fair amount of coding and statistical analysis plus might be entering a Phd program in a year or two. So, he uses a much more expensive 15 in MBP.

So, we paid about $900 a piece for the 3 entry level MBAs ($2,700). And, we paid about $2,700 for the one MBP. There is a market for both entry level and high end MacBooks.

 

[Timothy Leo Crowley]

(We have to look at 500GB and 1TB models because the 250GB model is so cheap and small that Amazon doesn't even bother to stock it, and Samsung doesn't even make a 120GB model because that amount of storage is so completely worthless. Except I guess Apple and Microsoft think it's somehow suitable to put in laptops that cost over $1000.)

Everyone is different. I find my 120gig quite useful. You need a larger internal hard drive. Not everyone does. Have a nice day.

 

[motrek]

The upgrade premium for storage is clearly a profit maximizing up-sale pricing strategy. If it wasn't a successful strategy (from a monetary standpoint), Apple would not do it. If you don't like the pricing, you can buy another computer with better specs at a lower price. But, beware of spec comparisons. In the past, you needed more storage space on a PC because of bloatware. Maybe this is not true anymore. I really don't know. Also, Microsoft charges $300 to upgrade the Surface Pro from 128GB to 256GB, so you might not be getting a better deal if you switch.
...

For better or for worse, I actually can't switch because I need to use MacOS for my job. I do really like MacOS, and in the past I've been a huge fan of Apple hardware (at least certain models anyway), but at this point I'd sadly really rather have MacOS running on PC hardware.

 

[Jimmy James]

I’ve had 128GB on my phone for years And it is adequate for me. Not excessive. Except, we’re talking about laptops.

That we get laptop storage that is nearly 4 times less than what came standard nearly 10 years ago is absurd. I don’t care that it’s no longer a platter drive. SSD pricing is now similar to platter drive costs at that time.

Yes, you can use external drives and cloud for primary storage but you shouldn’t need a work around for the prices they’re still charging. The machine should be cheaper or storage much greater. Period.

The comparison to Windows pricing is bunk. Apple has driven up pricing in the whole industry in what was nearly a commodity product. Then they’re screwing us in storage.

 

[sugargliderdude]

macOS Catalina gives the option to now keep something in the iCloud, but remove from the mac, so you could have 2TB iCloud and only have a 128gb SSD quite comfortably now.

You just right click on the folder you want to remove from your mac in iCloud and remove from mac, then the cloud appears near the folder, when you need it again, you just down load it again.

I was going to get a 1TB ssd next year when getting a new macbook pro, but i think i will just now use the iCloud more and get a 512GB.

 

[Jimmy James]

If we’re moving to cloud we may as well return to large capacity platter drives. Data access would be quicker. You’d still have the cloud option. And offline access.

 

[motrek]

macOS Catalina gives the option to now keep something in the iCloud, but remove from the mac, so you could have 2TB iCloud and only have a 128gb SSD quite comfortably now.

You just right click on the folder you want to remove from your mac in iCloud and remove from mac, then the cloud appears near the folder, when you need it again, you just down load it again.
...

1) That's great for your own folders/files/documents that you can move to the cloud. You can't move XCode to the cloud and you can't move your local iPhone backup to the cloud. Those are the things that take up the most space on my laptop's drive, not my documents.

2) I have a desktop computer (a Mac Mini) that I use at home. The only times I use my laptop are when I'm traveling. When I'm traveling I'm often somewhere in a hotel that has blah internet or sometimes no internet at all and I tether via my phone. Basically I often have crap internet when I'm using my laptop, so you can understand that I have 0% excitement about being able to move files from my laptop to the cloud.

 

[Mainsail]

Well, you can move your iPhone backup to iCloud. That's how I have been backing up my phone for years.

 

[motrek]

...
That we get laptop storage that is nearly 4 times less than what came standard nearly 10 years ago is absurd. I don’t care that it’s no longer a platter drive. SSD pricing is now similar to platter drive costs at that time.
...

Indeed. It's hard to find drive prices for 2.5" laptop drives circa 2009 but I think they were around $90 retail. Here's a page I found:

Hard disk drives vs. solid-state drives: Are SSDs finally worth the money?

While SSDs offer the best upgrade to a computer money can buy, they don't come cheap -- but there are alternatives that provide the performance you want without breaking the bank.

www.computerworld.com

So back in 2012, you could get a 500GB laptop drive for $90 retail. That was the base model configuration for MacBook Pros at the time.

Today you can get name-brand 500GB SSDs for $58 retail, and top-quality ones for $90.

So you're absolutely right, it would cost Apple about the same as it did in 2012 (actually less considering inflation) to fit the base-configuration MacBook with the amount of storage they thought was appropriate for a base configuration in 2012. WTF.
[automerge]1572920689[/automerge]

Well, you can move your iPhone backup to iCloud. That's how I have been backing up my phone for years.

I'm not a personal privacy nut but I still don't consider that a good option for privacy reasons.

Plus, there's the practical issue of, what if my phone gets stolen in a country/location where my internet access is poor. I might be able to source a new phone but if I need to do an iCloud restore it could literally take an entire day, or longer.

 

[Mainsail]

I'm not a personal privacy nut but I still don't consider that a good option for privacy reasons.

Plus, there's the practical issue of, what if my phone gets stolen in a country/location where my internet access is poor. I might be able to source a new phone but if I need to do an iCloud restore it could literally take an entire day, or longer.

The way I see this privacy issue is that nothing is 100%. With two factor authentication, I think iCloud is pretty secure, but certainly not perfect. I am not convinced that having backups on a local drive is much better. Someone can always steal your computer with backed up info. It might give one the illusion of control and safety because you can touch it, but not sure it is all that much more secure.

BTW - It always strikes me when I apply for a refinance. I fill out pages and pages of documentation with my personal information, accounts, assets, and liabilities. Then, I hand over all of this info to some mortgage broker or their assistant that keeps the files in a drawer until close of escrow. So, there are all kinds of security risks out there.

As for stolen iPhone, I presume you still have your laptop (or iPad) with email, contacts, calendar, and files. When you sync to the Cloud, this info is available on all of your devices. I would just get a cheap throw away phone for the duration of the trip, and use the laptop for business, text, and email. My daughter had her iPhone stolen when she was doing a fellowship in Uganda. She got by fine on an ancient iPad mini and a cheap flip phone until she got back to the states.

 

[motrek]

The way I see this privacy issue is that nothing is 100%. With two factor authentication, I think iCloud is pretty secure, but certainly not perfect.

Sure. I have fairly high confidence in Apple's security. But it's an unnecessary risk. Another issue is that, if the government wants the data on your phone, and you do iCloud backups, then they just have to ask Apple for the data and Apple has to hand it over.

I don't really have anything to hide from the government, but I don't want them to have the option of looking at all my stuff, especially if it's easily avoided by just doing local backups instead of iCloud backups.

I am not convinced that having backups on a local drive is much better. Someone can always steal your computer with backed up info. It might give one the illusion of control and safety because you can touch it, but not sure it is all that much more secure.

What wouldn't be secure about it? My account is password-protected and I keep all my drives encrypted.

As for stolen iPhone, I presume you still have your laptop (or iPad) with email, contacts, calendar, and files. When you sync to the Cloud, this info is available on all of your devices. I would just get a cheap throw away phone for the duration of the trip, and use the laptop for business, text, and email. My daughter had her iPhone stolen when she was doing a fellowship in Uganda. She got by fine on an ancient iPad mini and a cheap flip phone until she got back to the states.

Seems reasonable, but the point of backing up your phone is ultimately so you won't lose the data on your phone. I have data on my phone that isn't in the cloud, like my pictures, videos, text/iMessage messages, etc. So even if my phone was stolen and I could still get by for a while without it, ultimately I still want the data that was on it.

 

[Mainsail]

Sure. I have fairly high confidence in Apple's security. But it's an unnecessary risk. Another issue is that, if the government wants the data on your phone, and you do iCloud backups, then they just have to ask Apple for the data and Apple has to hand it over.

I don't really have anything to hide from the government, but I don't want them to have the option of looking at all my stuff, especially if it's easily avoided by just doing local backups instead of iCloud backups.



What wouldn't be secure about it? My account is password-protected and I keep all my drives encrypted.



Seems reasonable, but the point of backing up your phone is ultimately so you won't lose the data on your phone. I have data on my phone that isn't in the cloud, like my pictures, videos, text/iMessage messages, etc. So even if my phone was stolen and I could still get by for a while without it, ultimately I still want the data that was on it.

I have no idea why the government would want to look at my most recent photos from Disneyland. For me, this is no reason not to use iCloud backup and buy a bunch of additional local storage.

Yes, your Computer is password protected, but so is your iCloud account. Plus, you can use two factor authentication with iCloud, which is much more difficult to defeat than hacking a password on a local computer. Finally, if you have a few files that are really sensitive, you can password protect those for additional security.

I understand that you have data on your phone that isn't in the Cloud, but if you backed up your phone to iCloud you would still have access to this data from another trusted device. And, I assume you would have another device with you (i.e. the laptop that you keep the iPhone back up on). Otherwise, you would not have access either way. So, I still don't see the point.

I am not trying to talk you into being satisfied with just 128 GB of local storage. I get that this does not work for many people. I just don't understand the iCloud security concern/argument as the reason someone needs to buy more local storage. Like I said earlier, if you are worried about personal information security, don't fill out apartment rental, car loan, home mortgage, credit card, bank account or employment applications. In other words, live off the grid without work, shelter or transportation and pay cash for everything. I just don't see how using iCloud backup adds measurably to security risk when compared to these other forms of everyday exposure.

 

[motrek]

I have no idea why the government would want to look at my most recent photos from Disneyland. For me, this is no reason not to use iCloud backup and buy a bunch of additional local storage.

I'm in the same boat. I'm not Kate Upton. Nobody wants to see my photos. But that doesn't mean that my privacy is, or should be, unimportant to me. Privacy is valuable in and of itself. What you're making is sort of a "nothing to hide" argument:

Nothing to hide argument - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Personally I like Edward Snowden's reply to this argument the best: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.")

Yes, your Computer is password protected, but so is your iCloud account. Plus, you can use two factor authentication with iCloud, which is much more difficult to defeat than hacking a password on a local computer. Finally, if you have a few files that are really sensitive, you can password protect those for additional security.

This is not a good understanding of the relative privacy risks. If you have something in the cloud, you've increased your attack surface from almost nothing to, well, enormous. You have to transfer the data to and from the cloud; any of these transfers is an attack vector. Then the data is stored by Apple, and actually stored by Amazon and Microsoft since Apple uses those companies as backing storage. So that exposes it to any of those companies, plus the government (possibly multiple governments), plus simply misuse/abuse by Apple employees themselves.

Compare that to hacking a local password, actually you make that sound relatively easy but it's almost impossible considering that login attempts have progressively increasing delays. If you really want to hack somebody's data, your best bet is to remove the drive from the computer, which is possible with a 2014 MacBook Air. Then I suppose you could clone the data and use a supercomputer to run dictionary attacks on it, which might be successful depending on how good the encryption password is. I use fairly strong passwords (they could be stronger) so maybe they'd be vulnerable to this sort of attack. But I can't imagine anybody would actually want to go to that much trouble to get data off my stolen laptop. It's not like I'm being targeted by the KGB. (Yes, I know the KGB is not a thing anymore.)

Like I said earlier, if you are worried about personal information security, don't fill out apartment rental, car loan, home mortgage, credit card, bank account or employment applications. In other words, live off the grid without work, shelter or transportation and pay cash for everything. I just don't see how using iCloud backup adds measurably to security risk when compared to these other forms of everyday exposure.

Like I said, I'm not a privacy nut. I've given away all sorts of information that I didn't really want to, but I had to, to do regular-person stuff like you listed. And I'm under no illusions that my credit cards are secure or whatever.

But, as you don't understand my iCloud argument, I don't understand your argument that "some of your data is already exposed sometimes so you might as well give up all hope of having any degree of privacy at all."

 

[Mainsail]

I think we will just need to agree to disagree and move on. My point is that you don't give-up all hope, but you take reasonable precautions (such as two factor authentication) with iCloud. I perceive the other securty/privacy risks that I encounter in everyday life to be an order of magnitude greater than the risk I take backing up my phone with iCloud. So, I am not going to deny myself the convenience of using the Cloud for a minuscule amount of marginal risk compared to other stuff.