The history of SSD Capacities in Macbook Pros

apfelmann

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 23, 2007
341
85
Have you ever thought about how the SSD storage capacities of MacBook Pros developed in the last 6 or 7 years????

Well, it’s a short answer:
ITS LIKE APPLE GOT STUCK IN TIME!!!

In the Year 2012 the 15” MBP base model had 256GB and the 13” had 128GB

Today we are almost in the year 2019 and APPLE didn’t upgrade the SSD capacity in their MBPs for 7 freaking years!!!!

How is that even possible! This should be unthinkable
 
  • Like
Reactions: twanj

Howard2k

macrumors 68030
Mar 10, 2016
2,564
1,827
Have you ever thought about how the SSD storage capacities of MacBook Pros developed in the last 6 or 7 years????

Well, it’s a short answer:
ITS LIKE APPLE GOT STUCK IN TIME!!!

In the Year 2012 the 15” MBP base model had 256GB and the 13” had 128GB

Today we are almost in the year 2019 and APPLE didn’t upgrade the SSD capacity in their MBPs for 7 freaking years!!!!

How is that even possible! This should be unthinkable

When you buy one you can choose how much storage space you get. So if you want more than 128/256 you just upgrade when you purchase.
 

jeyf

macrumors 65816
Jan 20, 2009
1,187
540
no way i would consider anything less than 1Tb. We run a few strong virtual machines.
i am not interested in seeing my 19year old's porn, not even a little bit.

I got tangled up in the 2017 MBP keyboard recall. Next purchase may not be an Apple.
 

JPack

macrumors 601
Mar 27, 2017
4,681
7,002
It's an Apple strategy intended to encourage users to upgrade to the middle tier.
 

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,471
24,220
Now compare the speeds of the SSDs over the years? :)

Would you prefer they went mSATA and had more storage for the price for a quarter of the speeds? Personally I’d rather a better performing SSD and have the option for larger storage, but I can definitely appreciate why people would prefer more storage. 6Gb speeds are fast enough for most people’s usage.
 

jeyf

macrumors 65816
Jan 20, 2009
1,187
540
both
i hope they continue with 250G and even slower speeds in ALL their "new" designs

more emoji
 

theluggage

macrumors 601
Jul 29, 2011
4,035
2,717
Nothing is free.
What about those people who don't want a 1TB SSD?
I think they were trying to say that 1TB should be the default capacity, not that it should be given away.

In 2013, I paid £185 for a 256GB 2.5" SSD to upgrade my MBP. In 2018, the same money would easily get me a comparable 1TB SATA drive or a 500GB M.2 NVMe/PCIe drive with Apple-like speeds. Meanwhile Mac prices have gone up but they're still coming with 128 GB drives (and they've cut the size of the SSD portion of the 1TB fusion drives).

The only reason anybody wouldn't want a 1TB drive is if Apple wanted £600 for it (or whatever they're currently charging) - if it came with... lets say 512GB at the standard price, where's the problem?

Would you prefer they went mSATA and had more storage for the price for a quarter of the speeds?
As per the prices I gave above, the price of a SATA SSD drive in 2012 would buy you at least twice the capacity and PCIe speed in 2018. Certainly 256 - 500GB for the 2012 price of 128GB. A 1TB high speed PCIe M.2. stick costs $230 retail from Amazon - Apple want $600 for the upgrade, on top of an already premium-priced Mac. Ca-ching!
 
  • Like
Reactions: apfelmann and JPack

_Kiki_

macrumors 6502a
Aug 13, 2017
841
253
I think they were trying to say that 1TB should be the default capacity, not that it should be given away.

In 2013, I paid £185 for a 256GB 2.5" SSD to upgrade my MBP. In 2018, the same money would easily get me a comparable 1TB SATA drive or a 500GB M.2 NVMe/PCIe drive with Apple-like speeds. Meanwhile Mac prices have gone up but they're still coming with 128 GB drives (and they've cut the size of the SSD portion of the 1TB fusion drives).

The only reason anybody wouldn't want a 1TB drive is if Apple wanted £600 for it (or whatever they're currently charging) - if it came with... lets say 512GB at the standard price, where's the problem?



As per the prices I gave above, the price of a SATA SSD drive in 2012 would buy you at least twice the capacity and PCIe speed in 2018. Certainly 256 - 500GB for the 2012 price of 128GB. A 1TB high speed PCIe M.2. stick costs $230 retail from Amazon - Apple want $600 for the upgrade, on top of an already premium-priced Mac. Ca-ching!
What you can expect from trillion dollar company? they overcharging on everything, because premium, total joke
 
  • Like
Reactions: apfelmann

Howard2k

macrumors 68030
Mar 10, 2016
2,564
1,827
I think they were trying to say that 1TB should be the default capacity, not that it should be given away.

In 2013, I paid £185 for a 256GB 2.5" SSD to upgrade my MBP. In 2018, the same money would easily get me a comparable 1TB SATA drive or a 500GB M.2 NVMe/PCIe drive with Apple-like speeds. Meanwhile Mac prices have gone up but they're still coming with 128 GB drives (and they've cut the size of the SSD portion of the 1TB fusion drives).

The only reason anybody wouldn't want a 1TB drive is if Apple wanted £600 for it (or whatever they're currently charging) - if it came with... lets say 512GB at the standard price, where's the problem?

An increase in storage for the same price, that would be great. Otherwise, I don't want to see an increase in price corresponding to an increase in base storage for 1TB (for example). I can manage perfectly fine with 256. I get it, for people how need to have loads of data with them at all times it's an expensive challenge, but I don't think most people are really in that boat.
[doublepost=1542942275][/doublepost]
What you can expect from trillion dollar company? they overcharging on everything, because premium, total joke
They're a trillion dollar company (or were a trillion dollar company) because they have more than a basic understanding of economics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Painter2002

Painter2002

macrumors 65816
May 9, 2017
1,074
755
Austin, TX
I can still get by with 256GB. I don't want to pay for more than I need.
Same, I have several external drives. In fact I prefer the smaller internal drive with many larger external drives for redundancy so if the MacBook has issues or the internal drive gets corrupted it would create less chaos for me. Besides, if it keeps the price low on already on an already expensive laptop, I’m ok with the smaller storage
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howard2k

Trebuin

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2008
1,491
266
Central Cali
Apple is not stuck in time...the reality is that they are leveraging to make $$$. First, there's already an "Apple Tax" on the upgrades. What I have found is that the lowest capacities on the iPhones & Macs are there to run out & put us in the position to rebuy a machine with larger capacity. That's a huge with for Apple...& rather dirty in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apfelmann

Howard2k

macrumors 68030
Mar 10, 2016
2,564
1,827
Same, I have several external drives. In fact I prefer the smaller internal drive with many larger external drives for redundancy so if the MacBook has issues or the internal drive gets corrupted it would create less chaos for me. Besides, if it keeps the price low on already on an already expensive laptop, I’m ok with the smaller storage
You heathen!

We're not the same, you and I. I'm using a NAS. That's a Network Attached Storage. Way better than external drives.

ok, we're the same. Apple's pricing for internal storage is insane. It amazes me that people buy it when there are many far cheaper alternatives out there. NAS and/or external storage and/or cloud. I don't need to have access to that photo of my child's birthday party in 2003 at all times. If push came to shove I could just VPN to home and open it, and we're talking about several minutes vs mere seconds, but I can manage that. To be fair though, it must be nice - 4TB would allow me to keep everything local I think. It's just an insane price point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Painter2002

_Kiki_

macrumors 6502a
Aug 13, 2017
841
253
An increase in storage for the same price, that would be great. Otherwise, I don't want to see an increase in price corresponding to an increase in base storage for 1TB (for example). I can manage perfectly fine with 256. I get it, for people how need to have loads of data with them at all times it's an expensive challenge, but I don't think most people are really in that boat.
[doublepost=1542942275][/doublepost]

They're a trillion dollar company (or were a trillion dollar company) because they have more than a basic understanding of economics.
yes of course, pure Murica capitalism
 

theluggage

macrumors 601
Jul 29, 2011
4,035
2,717
An increase in storage for the same price, that would be great.
That's all that's being asked - in 2018 "entry level" on a premium-priced product like a Mac should be at least 256, even for fast PCIe. If they did still make a sub-$1000 laptop, that would be the place for 128GB.

I can still get by with 256GB. I don't want to pay for more than I need.
...but the base Mini, the base Air and the base non-TB don't even come with that, and the upgrades are 2-3x the retail price of even fast PCIe SSD sticks. Over 5-6 years, the capacities should have doubled across the board at the same price (while, in fact, the prices have gone up) - you shouldn't have to "get by" on a premium machine like a Mac.

They're a trillion dollar company (or were a trillion dollar company) because they have more than a basic understanding of economics.
Well, they were a %1TN company, but then the stock started falling - there are many possible reasons for that (some of them global - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46281768), but rising prices are one of them - the clear message from the last two quarters has been increased revenue from stagnant sales (i.e. selling less for more) which isn't sustainable.
 

Falhófnir

macrumors 68040
Aug 19, 2017
3,490
3,871
Other laptops generally are the same though when it comes to storage
The 15" Pro starts at £2,349. For that price, competitors are all offering at least 512GB, and a lot 1TB. The Pro offers 256GB. By the time you look at the upgraded model for 512GB, you're spending £2,700 - with the exception of the deliberately overpriced surface book competitors models don't even get this expensive maxed out and will definitely have 1TB of storage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apfelmann

phunigai

Suspended
Nov 12, 2018
193
187
I read somewhere online that the Etruscans were the first to use a 24 GB ssd in their 12" macbooks back in 2009 BC. while running sabre toothed leopard. if that aint history, i dont know if we can go further.
 

jeyf

macrumors 65816
Jan 20, 2009
1,187
540
i get by with my 1989 Macintosh portable

apple was a trillion dollar company for about 3 days