Soldered Storage: A Design Choice

[120FPS]

I have to be honest I just cannot get over Apple‘s switch to soldered to logic board storage (I can deal with the RAM not being upgradable as there is an obvious benefit to that approach). I have been a Mac user since the early 2000’s and being able to upgrade my storage requirements later in the computers life just seems more practical and greener for me than buying a new computer when my storage runs out. I want to get the most out of my machine over its usable lifetime.

I say this as someone who owned and splurged on a higher capacity model TouchBar Mac and I had so many problems with it that I never had with the thicker unibody MacBook Pro that were a dream to maintain and upgrade.

I just wish Apple was more serious about being environmentally friendly with their business practices, as this seems pretty much in service to their bank balance and not the customer or the environment.

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

I hear you but your first mistake is thinking large corporations care about the environment. It’s all marketing BS and Apple literally created a brand new dongle for the iPad 10th gen simply because they couldn’t, or didn’t, want to use the 2nd gen Pencil.

 

[Zest28]

Apple hated that we bought the base model 15” MBP in the past and fully maxed out every spec with 3rd party components for cheap with far superior warranty.

The RAM of my 12 year old MAC still has active warranty, I’m not even kidding.

So that is why Apple decided to solder down everything so we were forced to buy the huge Apple tax on components with crappy 1-year warranty (instead of 5 years or even lifetime warranty that you usually get with 3rd party components).

 

[120FPS]

I hear you but your first mistake is thinking large corporations care about the environment. It’s all marketing BS and Apple literally created a brand new dongle for the iPad 10th gen simply because they couldn’t, or didn’t, want to use the 2nd gen Pencil.

I understand that perfectly but people (in power) who make flimsy environmental promises to suit a sales agenda should be held accountable. Customers hold Apple to a higher standard and we certainly seem to be paying for it in the prices.

This dongle situation upsets me too and that product isn’t even aimed at me, really they should have just used the 2nd gen Pencil with a charging bit on the left of the device. It just seems Apple want to increase prices with every release and keep them inflated. These are just tools at the end of the day, and I do not mind paying a bit more for a more thought-out design but it’s getting ridiculous now.

 

[leman]

I do hope that they will move all of their computers to use slotted SSDs, like what they do on Mac Studio. It doesn't look like their SSD connector uses that much more more vertical space compared to a soldered on solution, and it would address the repairability concern. It would probably also make sense to Apple as it could reduce their costs (they can use same modules across more devices). Of course, it still won't be user-upgradeable, but that ship has sailed.

 

[120FPS]

I do hope that they will move all of their computers to use slotted SSDs, like what they do on Mac Studio. It doesn't look like their SSD connector uses that much more more vertical space compared to a soldered on solution, and it would address the repairability concern. It would probably also make sense to Apple as it could reduce their costs (they can use same modules across more devices). Of course, it still won't be user-upgradeable, but that ship has sailed.

Well considering that the SD card reader, MagSafe and a thicker more thermally sensible chassis is back I do not think the ship has sailed and customers should not approach this with apathy. We should be holding reviewers/journalists accountable and really ask them why they aren't probing Apple's choices in this matter more diligently especially when the competition allows the user to upgrade their devices. The single user may not have much power but if we direct it appropriately (and with respect) we can achieve a lot.

I'm sure mac users here have given a lot of their time fighting for software support on the Mac over the years, with positive results. We cannot be complacent and allow Apple to drop the ball or create a hostile relationship with their customers out of greed because we have spent a lot of money in this ecosystem and there is nowhere else to go if you use MacOS.

 

[leman]

Well considering that the SD card reader, MagSafe and a thicker more thermally sensible chassis is back I do not think the ship has sailed and customers should not approach this with apathy. We should be holding reviewers/journalists accountable and really ask them why they aren't probing Apple's choices in this matter more diligently especially when the competition allows the user to upgrade their devices. The single user may not have much power but if we direct it appropriately (and with respect) we can achieve a lot.

I'm sure mac users here have given a lot of their time fighting for software support on the Mac over the years, with positive results. We cannot be complacent and allow Apple to drop the ball or create a hostile relationship with their customers out of greed because we have spent a lot of money in this ecosystem and there is nowhere else to go if you use MacOS.

There are a few things that should be mentioned here I think. First, customers don’t care about upgrades. They really don’t. If they did you wouldn’t have an entire industry moving to the non-upgradeable model (with Apple at the forefront). Upgradeability is a niche demand and will likely stay that way. Second, most you will get is a slotted SSD. It still won’t be user-upgradeable and it won’t be compatible with aftermarket parts (because Apple uses raw flash chips without controller or anything). So if Apple decides to offer upgradeability, it will be upgradeability on their terms - you paying a hefty amount plus labor. Not many customers would do this, so that’s a likely reason they don’t offer it. But the main point is that there is no way Apple is going to go back to industry-standard modular SSDs, if that’s what you want. If anything, this stuff will become more proprietary and more custom with time, as will RAM. And regarding RAM - if you want upgradeability here, just forget it entirely. Upgradeable RAM would compromise the very concept of Apple Silicon.

 

[LinkRS]

There are a few things that should be mentioned here I think. First, customers don’t care about upgrades. They really don’t. If they did you wouldn’t have an entire industry moving to the non-upgradeable model (with Apple at the forefront). Upgradeability is a niche demand and will likely stay that way. Second, most you will get is a slotted SSD. It still won’t be user-upgradeable and it won’t be compatible with aftermarket parts (because Apple uses raw flash chips without controller or anything). So if Apple decides to offer upgradeability, it will be upgradeability on their terms - you paying a hefty amount plus labor. Not many customers would do this, so that’s a likely reason they don’t offer it. But the main point is that there is no way Apple is going to go back to industry-standard modular SSDs, if that’s what you want. If anything, this stuff will become more proprietary and more custom with time, as will RAM. And regarding RAM - if you want upgradeability here, just forget it entirely. Upgradeable RAM would compromise the very concept of Apple Silicon.

Apple seems to be straying further and further from "professional" systems. I would think that most businesses don't want to have to replace entire machines due to part failures, and the ability to replace individual components is commonplace enterprise markets. Apple's systems seem to be very consumer focused, with the idea of providing the best curated experience possible. I am very curious what Apple's plans are for their customers that need hundreds of GBs of RAM, or for that matter customers that need to back-up of their internal drives. I don't think many businesses want their employees backing up using iCloud.

 

[leman]

Apple seems to be straying further and further from "professional" systems. I would think that most businesses don't want to have to replace entire machines due to part failures, and the ability to replace individual components is commonplace enterprise markets. Apple's systems seem to be very consumer focused, with the idea of providing the best curated experience possible.

I’d say (after running the IT department of a fairly large research group) that most businesses don’t care. From businesses perspective, it doesn’t matter what and how is replaced, they just want to avoid downtime. Support is a black box - you give them your broken computer and you want to get one that works back ASAP. For a small business, a support contract that offers rental machines to avoid downtime is much cheaper than running their own support department who takes care of repairs or upgrades. For a large business it’s even easier as they are more likely to have a park of unused computers for quick emergencies.

I am very curious what Apple's plans are for their customers that need hundreds of GBs of RAM

Same as it was before. That’s a very niche requirement and customers who need that kind of computer are probably not looking for a Mac anyway. Sure, the Mac Pro does support huge amounts of RAM, so an upcoming AS MP will either support it too or it won’t. Either way, not much changes for Apple‘s business. It was never their market.

or for that matter customers that need to back-up of their internal drives. I don't think many businesses want their employees backing up using iCloud.

Erm, Time Machine?

 

[TSE]

When will thunderbolt reach a point in speed that we can "plug in" more ram? Will that ever be achievable?

 

[GMShadow]

I’d say (after running the IT department of a fairly large research group) that most businesses don’t care. From businesses perspective, it doesn’t matter what and how is replaced, they just want to avoid downtime. Support is a black box - you give them your broken computer and you want to get one that works back ASAP. For a small business, a support contract that offers rental machines to avoid downtime is much cheaper than running their own support department who takes care of repairs or upgrades. For a large business it’s even easier as they are more likely to have a park of unused computers for quick emergencies.

Correct. Business has support contracts - if something goes wrong, they just hand it off. IT departments generally don't have time/interest in doing a storage upgrade or diagnosis.

 

[leman]

When will thunderbolt reach a point in speed that we can "plug in" more ram? Will that ever be achievable?

Not any time soon, if ever. And even if the bandwidth will become good enough for some basic needs, the latency won’t.

If Apple wants to have high capacity RAM on the MP and want it at a relatively affordable price point, the only viable thing is tiered RAM, where you have fast on-package DRAM acting like cache for slower traditional socketed RAM.

 

[Analog Kid]

I do hope that they will move all of their computers to use slotted SSDs, like what they do on Mac Studio. It doesn't look like their SSD connector uses that much more more vertical space compared to a soldered on solution, and it would address the repairability concern. It would probably also make sense to Apple as it could reduce their costs (they can use same modules across more devices). Of course, it still won't be user-upgradeable, but that ship has sailed.

There’s a difference between the Mac Studio and a MBP, though. One sits on a desk, the other faces vibration and shocks. Connectors will be less reliable in a portable device. Despite everyone‘s speculative insistence that it’s a money grab, there are also legitimate technical reasons as well. I’m sure each machine goes through a reliability and service strategy analysis during development.

For the MS, the vibration constraints are minimal and the cost of swapping a motherboard with an Ultra is high. For a MBP, the vibration requirements are higher. For a 24” iMac the cost of replacing the mother board is lower.

 

[PauloSera]

I have to be honest I just cannot get over Apple‘s switch to soldered to logic board storage (I can deal with the RAM not being upgradable as there is an obvious benefit to that approach). I have been a Mac user since the early 2000’s and being able to upgrade my storage requirements later in the computers life just seems more practical and greener for me than buying a new computer when my storage runs out. I want to get the most out of my machine over its usable lifetime.

I say this as someone who owned and splurged on a higher capacity model TouchBar Mac and I had so many problems with it that I never had with the thicker unibody MacBook Pro that were a dream to maintain and upgrade.

I just wish Apple was more serious about being environmentally friendly with their business practices, as this seems pretty much in service to their bank balance and not the customer or the environment.

1. Any argument like this that tries to draw "the environment" into it is ridiculous. Don't. Not everything is about "the environment".
2. Would you be OK with a device that is an overall a worse design because the storage needs to be removable, and performance that is worse because it needs to go through a different interface? I would not.
3. Just be honest and say, "These computers are almost too expensive for me, so I prefer to buy them as cheap as I can, and upgrade some parts later when I have more money." Because that's really what this is about, right? This is about needing 1 TB of storage, but not wanting to pay for it (yet), and somehow Apple's product is designed wrong because of this. No.

 

[Corefile]

I just wish Apple was more serious about being environmentally friendly with their business practices, as this seems pretty much in service to their bank balance and not the customer or the environment.

Apple was leaving money on the table by allowing third party upgrades to be used. Going this route of non-upgrading means they maximize the profit from each individual sale. That's very good shareholder value doing that. FWIW, companies use social concepts like caring for the environment merely as mechanisms to market products to those who believe it helps. Apple is the king of such marketing.

 

[120FPS]

There are a few things that should be mentioned here I think. First, customers don’t care about upgrades. They really don’t. If they did you wouldn’t have an entire industry moving to the non-upgradeable model (with Apple at the forefront). Upgradeability is a niche demand and will likely stay that way. Second, most you will get is a slotted SSD. It still won’t be user-upgradeable and it won’t be compatible with aftermarket parts (because Apple uses raw flash chips without controller or anything). So if Apple decides to offer upgradeability, it will be upgradeability on their terms - you paying a hefty amount plus labor. Not many customers would do this, so that’s a likely reason they don’t offer it. But the main point is that there is no way Apple is going to go back to industry-standard modular SSDs, if that’s what you want. If anything, this stuff will become more proprietary and more custom with time, as will RAM. And regarding RAM - if you want upgradeability here, just forget it entirely. Upgradeable RAM would compromise the very concept of Apple Silicon.

That is why I left out RAM because it’s the only decision that made sense. The rest is Apple syphoning money out of peoples wallets while yelling we are green and and then turning around and asking people to buy an entire new computer when their storage needs become outdated. Yes I’m well aware that the storage they use is just raw flash chips, I followed the bs reasoning during the Mac Studio tear-downs.

Like I said it is something I cannot accept and people should not accept. What kind of world are we creating where everything is going to be disposable the minute it’s not fit for use? Are you telling me people on this forum would not upgrade the storage themselves? The people on this forum are the promoters, the ones who get people to switch. There would be no Apple without people opening and tinkering with things, breaking systems, repairing things and repurposing things.

 

[120FPS]

I’d say (after running the IT department of a fairly large research group) that most businesses don’t care. From businesses perspective, it doesn’t matter what and how is replaced, they just want to avoid downtime. Support is a black box - you give them your broken computer and you want to get one that works back ASAP. For a small business, a support contract that offers rental machines to avoid downtime is much cheaper than running their own support department who takes care of repairs or upgrades. For a large business it’s even easier as they are more likely to have a park of unused computers for quick emergencies.



Same as it was before. That’s a very niche requirement and customers who need that kind of computer are probably not looking for a Mac anyway. Sure, the Mac Pro does support huge amounts of RAM, so an upcoming AS MP will either support it too or it won’t. Either way, not much changes for Apple‘s business. It was never their market.



Erm, Time Machine?

Yes this is great for a large company with the resources to treat computers like disposable pens.

 

[120FPS]

There’s a difference between the Mac Studio and a MBP, though. One sits on a desk, the other faces vibration and shocks. Connectors will be less reliable in a portable device. Despite everyone‘s speculative insistence that it’s a money grab, there are also legitimate technical reasons as well. I’m sure each machine goes through a reliability and service strategy analysis during development.

For the MS, the vibration constraints are minimal and the cost of swapping a motherboard with an Ultra is high. For a MBP, the vibration requirements are higher. For a 24” iMac the cost of replacing the mother board is lower.

Yet Apple has blocked upgrading the drive on the Mac Studio. Think of all those MBP with connectors that were just fine.

This is a money grab pure and simple. This is a company move to increase profits and keep shareholders happy, not customers.

 

[120FPS]

1. Any argument like this that tries to draw "the environment" into it is ridiculous. Don't. Not everything is about "the environment".
2. Would you be OK with a device that is an overall a worse design because the storage needs to be removable, and performance that is worse because it needs to go through a different interface? I would not.
3. Just be honest and say, "These computers are almost too expensive for me, so I prefer to buy them as cheap as I can, and upgrade some parts later when I have more money." Because that's really what this is about, right? This is about needing 1 TB of storage, but not wanting to pay for it (yet), and somehow Apple's product is designed wrong because of this. No.

Well hell who are these computers for then? How many young people (students) will be able to get a Mac? If you charge so much that it doesn't make financial or practical sense to buy a mac how is the mac going to be a sustainable platform for software development if the customer base dwindles? Also from my own personal experience with a soldered and glued mac (I ordered the top spec model with the highest capacity SSD, so I have the money), it has not been good! it has broken more than any mac I have ever had and I had the 1st gen intel MBP in its skinny aluminium chassis.

The environment aspect is to put a spotlight on the hypocrisy coming from Apple. We love the earth but here buy an entire new computer and throw that one that runs perfectly fine but can't hold any more data out, buy a dongle, buy this specific charger for your iphone if you want to charge faster. This approach is just wrong.

 

[kschendel]

Internal storage upgradeability isn't free. The connector costs money (and good ones aren't necessarily cheap). It takes up volume and complicates signal path robustness. Soldering on the other hand is close to free, at least from a manufacturing standpoint. Given that you can match or come close to matching internal speeds with an external device, I'm not surprised Apple is soldering in storage devices.

 

[headlessmike]

I’d say (after running the IT department of a fairly large research group) that most businesses don’t care. From businesses perspective, it doesn’t matter what and how is replaced, they just want to avoid downtime. Support is a black box - you give them your broken computer and you want to get one that works back ASAP. For a small business, a support contract that offers rental machines to avoid downtime is much cheaper than running their own support department who takes care of repairs or upgrades. For a large business it’s even easier as they are more likely to have a park of unused computers for quick emergencies.

My employer replaced a colleague’s MacBook Air once because the MagSafe charger died. A new laptop could be had immediately while a new charger would take a few days to arrive. From their perspective it was a no-brainer: it was cheaper to replace the laptop than to have any downtime. This is the reality in most professional environments, that they’re not concerned about upgrading or repairing machines, just that everything constantly works. The situation is of course different for individuals who are more likely to tinker. Only Apple knows which market is bigger for them.

 

[leman]

Yes I’m well aware that the storage they use is just raw flash chips, I followed the bs reasoning during the Mac Studio tear-downs.

How is that BS reasoning? There are valid technical reasons not to use industry-standard SSDs. From the freedom to innovate at your own pace to tightly coupling the SSD controller with the OS. Adding third-party firmware into the mix decreases system reliability. For example, many third-party SSDs controllers don't honour the FLUSh command, making them less reliable.

Yet Apple has blocked upgrading the drive on the Mac Studio. Think of all those MBP with connectors that were just fine.

They didn't block upgrading the drive, they just didn't bother adding support for reconfiguring the SoC firmware in the Configurator. Moot point anyway since these SSDs are not for sale in the first place. It's just not a supported use case.

This is a money grab pure and simple. This is a company move to increase profits and keep shareholders happy, not customers.

It's a design choice. It would be much cheaper overall for Apple to use third-party drives and don't care about the details. To dismiss this as a simple "money grab" is naive at best. You might dislike Apple's hardware strategy, but that doesn't make it invalid.

Well hell who are these computers for then? How many young people (students) will be able to get a Mac? If you charge so much that it doesn't make financial or practical sense to buy a mac how is the mac going to be a sustainable platform for software development if the customer base dwindles?

Where do you see the evidence of customer base dwindling? Mac market share is actually rising after the introduction of Apple Silicon. Sure, some users will be put off by the way how these machines are non-serviceable, but then again, that is a very small interest group. As I said before, users don't upgrade computers. Again, you might disagree with this, but these are facts. As to students... Macs have never been cheap, if anything, Apple Silicon gives you much more value per money.

Also from my own personal experience with a soldered and glued mac (I ordered the top spec model with the highest capacity SSD, so I have the money), it has not been good! it has broken more than any mac I have ever had and I had the 1st gen intel MBP in its skinny aluminium chassis.

Your anecdotal experience does not reflect the average experience. There is no evidence that laptops with soldered-on components are any less reliable. There are arguments to be made that they are more reliable (fewer points of failure and more reliable connection).

Like I said it is something I cannot accept and people should not accept. What kind of world are we creating where everything is going to be disposable the minute it’s not fit for use?

I fully agree with you that I don't want to live in a world of disposable devices. But what you are presenting is a false dichotomy. Upgradeability is not the answer to less waste. Upgradeability is dictatorship of minority and it comes with very real cost — for environment, innovation, reliability and power efficiency. My vision is reusability and component-level refurbishing. Old or broken computers should be stripped for parts and rebuilt in specialised facilities. When your tightly integrated machine is broken, you should just get a new one while the old one is fixed on a component level or stripped if repair is not feasible. This would be better for the environment and economy while allowing innovation at a steady pace. Yes, it would be more expensive overall. But I'd rather pay a local technician and support local economy than some dictator state that controls rare mineral mines or dumps electronic garbage on islands.

However, users don't like this model because they want "new stuff". It's really ridiculous in my opinion, but that's how people are unfortunately.

Are you telling me people on this forum would not upgrade the storage themselves? The people on this forum are the promoters, the ones who get people to switch. There would be no Apple without people opening and tinkering with things, breaking systems, repairing things and repurposing things.

Sure, people who upgrade are certainly over-represented on these forums. And yet I still don't see any mass exodus, which means that Apple's strategy is not as alienating to its enthusiast user base as you might think. I did upgrade my MacBook Pro back around 2010 since I wanted more performance, so I went from a larger HDD to a smaller SSD. It made sense back then, doesn't make sense today, where you already get the fastest thing around anyway.

 

[MayaUser]

Are you telling me people on this forum would not upgrade the storage themselves?

Probably 8 out 10 nope...Its easier to use external storage that nowadays is very fast , compared to the 90 or early 00' when external storage was a pass no. External storage used between multiple device is a must, while internal swapping has died for the right reasons probably a decade ago. Do you still want the flash support back? I am wondering if you dont hate that Apple started the trend of removing flash support, optical drive etc too

 

[Queen6]

Retrospectively Apple does have an interest in the environment likely split across, corporate interest, board, shareholders, customers and the press. Apple likes to milk its environmental stance which TBH is just good sales & marketing, equally It has to back up what it says publicly as the company is putting itself on the line.

As correctly stated in the corporate environment cost effectiveness & uptime is all that counts. Vast majority of large companies will have an IT policy which can be a minefield to navigate. To upgrade or effect an out of warrantee repair can require multiple line managers approval with rational up to a VP. Such companies generally supply their employees with HW/SW that is capable of doing the job for the term of the HW's deemed lifecycle (3-4 years). Repair and replacement being delt with by the provider...

Reality is the bulk of Mac's are likely sold to the average customer and they have little to no inclination to upgrade or poke about inside the case barring a very few enthusiasts. What they do want is sleek fast portables & desktops with the former having class leading battery life. While I'd like to see Apple reduce its inhouse upgrade pricing and tier repair (Logic Board) versus time. It's not going to happen as long as Mac's sell in volume as Apple has no incentive to do so being a for profit company.

As my environment is mixed, I tend to go with the least internal storage I can get away with and utilise fast external SSD's. For my personal use base model Mac's are more than capable. If engaged on an engineering project I'll look at the right HW/SW solution for the task nor care the cost as it will deliver revenue. I'll always have one or the other, be it Linux, macOS or windows as this is very much a failsafe...

As for the OP's original question I don't see how Apple can without compromising performance and battery life or pushing pricing through the roof, which is already happening due to volatile exchange rates L&G if in the EU or UK place your orders soon, very soon expect 20% on current pricing.

Q-6

 

[Bodhitree]

Apple was leaving money on the table by allowing third party upgrades to be used. Going this route of non-upgrading means they maximize the profit from each individual sale. That's very good shareholder value doing that. FWIW, companies use social concepts like caring for the environment merely as mechanisms to market products to those who believe it helps. Apple is the king of such marketing.

That kind of thinking only applies after you decide that the avenue of maximising your market size in the normal PC marketplace is maxed out. Apple’s Mac market share is about 10% globally, but that’s mostly in the high-end market segment and growth there is limited by the fact that a lot of high end consumer machines are gamer machines or at least dual purpose.

Even with the boost provided by Apple Silicon in cpu power and battery life, I haven’t heard that the Mac sales have increased substantially (beyond a few percentage points of global market share). So I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple decided to price their products to maximise profit per box, rather than targeting further increases in market share.