Value of upgrading 2011 iMac with SSD?

[Mike_N]

Hi all,

I have a mid-2011 27" iMac, which is working fine, but is starting to show its age. I upgraded the RAM to 20gb and am considering adding a 240gb SSD in addition to the original 1tb hard drive per this install guide from OWC:

I am good with hardware, and am fairly certain I can pull it off, however, my question for you mac gurus is - How much do you think it would increase in value in addition to its estimated street price of $450-500 all stock judging by local CraigsList? Adding RAM cost me roughly $70, the install kit is $37, and I already have the SSD which cost me another $74, making this upgrade ~ $180 plus 2-3 hours of my time provided it goes well. Would you say the average buyer out there care and be willing to pay the premium? All opinions welcome.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I don't think it will help that much, you may not even make your money back. The value here is more based on the fact that it's an Apple iMac, and Apple hardware holds value better over time versus other computer makers. Still, at some point people will only want to pay so much for an old iMac, and I don't think you'll manage to turn your investment into that much more money. Your buyer is looking for a bargain here. I also think people suspect a 7 year old computer is on borrowed time, so you almost don't want to get their expectations too high by saying you fixed it up when the PSU or display could die any day.

Now if you were asking if you should upgrade it for your own use, I'd say definitely yes, as it will make a noticeable difference regarding performance. But if it were me and I was selling, I wouldn't make the effort. When I sold my maxed out 2009 Mac Pro, I actually put the original CPU, HDD, and GPU back in and sold the upgrades separately. I think I made more money that way than if I had sold it as I had upgraded it. In fact, I think I sold everything for more than I paid for them originally!

 

[borgranta]

Hi all,

I have a mid-2011 27" iMac, which is working fine, but is starting to show its age. I upgraded the RAM to 20gb and am considering adding a 240gb SSD in addition to the original 1tb hard drive per this install guide from OWC:

I am good with hardware, and am fairly certain I can pull it off, however, my question for you mac gurus is - How much do you think it would increase in value in addition to its estimated street price of $450-500 all stock judging by local CraigsList? Adding RAM cost me roughly $70, the install kit is $37, and I already have the SSD which cost me another $74, making this upgrade ~ $180 plus 2-3 hours of my time provided it goes well. Would you say the average buyer out there care and be willing to pay the premium? All opinions welcome.

Thank you in advance.

You could justify an asking price of $500 by detailing how much money the upgrades cost.

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

You won't get the money back. It is now seven years old, very dodgy graphics and USB2 are all against it.

 

[NZPilgrim]

I would agree with Darmok. If you're upgrading it for the purpose of using it, then it is well worth the effort. My 2011 got a new lease of life when I replaced the HDD with an SSD a couple of years back and it's still going strong now for my wife.

If the only reason you're doing it is to try and increase the sale value, then personally I wouldn't bother. You're not likely to make your money back and you could probably make more by selling the SSD and extra RAM separately.

 

[Fishrrman]

It's 6 years old.
If you really want more speed and performance, it's time to start shopping for something new or Apple-refurbished.
A better use of the money...

 

[siddhartha]

I would base the upgrade off of the increased usability of the computer post-upgrade. The change to SSD will make it far more snappy, and usable. However, you won't likely get the upgrade cost back should you sell.
I did this same upgrade (to a 2TB SSD, from a 1TB HD) on that model of iMac, and it serves its purpose well (media server).
But, I didn't do it with the goal of resale.

 

[Mike_N]

Thank you all for your input, much appreciated! I was leaning toward the same answer, and am glad I didn't go ahead with the SSD. Now, are you saying I should even remove the extra RAM before selling? One would think the original 4Gb be way too low in this day and age?

 

[dogslobber]

I’m just about to shove a 1TB SSD into a 2011 iMac here.

 

[frank4]

I'm thinking about a SSD too, for a 2011 base Mac Mini, bought October 2011. Seems strange to be considering putting money into a 7 year old computer, but it still runs fine for me and the way I work I don't often notice a big problem with HD speed (it's 500GB).

However everyone says an SSD is very worthwhile and the prices are becoming hard to resist. Considering a 500GB Samsung 860 EVO or maybe the 1TB version as those drives and the 850 have a good reputation.

Also I could get a used 2012 base Mini and upgrade that instead, then sell the 2011 or hook it into home theatre room.

 

[dogslobber]

Apple EOL'd my 2011 iMac with no support for Mojave so it will have two years of updates to High Sierra for security patches. After that I will simply switch to FF from Safari as FF will support it for many years to come. So putting a 1TB drive in makes sense to me as these Apple machines have great longevity and I won't be buying another Apple iMac as they are not user upgradable any more.

 

[mj_]

So putting a 1TB drive in makes sense to me as these Apple machines have great longevity and I won't be buying another Apple iMac as they are not user upgradable any more.

That is not entirely true. The 27" iMac still has a RAM door to provide easy access to the four SO-DIMM slots. Plus, once you're out of warranty you can take it to a professional and have the internal hard disk drive upgraded to large and fast SSD for cheap, or you can do it yourself if you're somewhat handy and willing to face the risks. As far as I remember the main difference between the 2011 and the 2017 iMac is that the latter's screen is glued into the aluminum frame instead of being attached with magnets. Which means it is slightly harder to take apart and reassemble but it is still just as user upgradeable as the older model. I think you can even swap the CPU out for a faster i5 or i7 model if I'm not mistaken.

 

[tubeexperience]

That is not entirely true. The 27" iMac still has a RAM door to provide easy access to the four SO-DIMM slots. Plus, once you're out of warranty you can take it to a professional and have the internal hard disk drive upgraded to large and fast SSD for cheap, or you can do it yourself if you're somewhat handy and willing to face the risks. As far as I remember the main difference between the 2011 and the 2017 iMac is that the latter's screen is glued into the aluminum frame instead of being attached with magnets. Which means it is slightly harder to take apart and reassemble but it is still just as user upgradeable as the older model. I think you can even swap the CPU out for a faster i5 or i7 model if I'm not mistaken.

It's not glued: it's taped.

Both the 21.5" and 27" has upgradable memory and, of cause, you can replace the hard drive with the solid state drive.

I advise anyone doing the upgrade to read the instructions a few times as any damages/accidents are not covered under warranty.

 

[mreg376]

That is not entirely true. The 27" iMac still has a RAM door to provide easy access to the four SO-DIMM slots. Plus, once you're out of warranty you can take it to a professional and have the internal hard disk drive upgraded to large and fast SSD for cheap, or you can do it yourself if you're somewhat handy and willing to face the risks. As far as I remember the main difference between the 2011 and the 2017 iMac is that the latter's screen is glued into the aluminum frame instead of being attached with magnets. Which means it is slightly harder to take apart and reassemble but it is still just as user upgradeable as the older model. I think you can even swap the CPU out for a faster i5 or i7 model if I'm not mistaken.

And of course you have to consider that once the new iMac is opened Apple may refuse to work on the machine under warranty, or even after the warranty is over, whether or not you argue with them that no damage was done while it was opened.

 

[tubeexperience]

And of course you have to consider that once the new iMac is opened Apple may refuse to work on the machine under warranty, or even after the warranty is over, whether or not you argue with them that no damage was done while it was opened.

Opening one's Mac does not void the warranty.

From the FTC:

The letters warn that FTC staff has concerns about the companies’ statements that consumers must use specified parts or service providers to keep their warranties intact. Unless warrantors provide the parts or services for free or receive a waiver from the FTC, such statements generally are prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a law that governs consumer product warranties. Similarly, such statements may be deceptive under the FTC Act.

Each company used different language, but here are examples of questionable provisions:

• The use of [company name] parts is required to keep your . . . manufacturer’s warranties and any extended warranties intact.
• This warranty shall not apply if this product . . . is used with products not sold or licensed by [company name].
• This warranty does not apply if this product . . . has had the warranty seal on the [product] altered, defaced, or removed.

“Provisions that tie warranty coverage to the use of particular products or services harm both consumers who pay more for them as well as the small businesses who offer competing products and services,” said Thomas B. Pahl, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

From MacSales/OWC:

Unfortunately though, there exists a misconception among some users and even technicians that opening the machine voids the warranty.

We address this topic directly with customers via our support portals and are happy to inform you here of the same fact: upgrading your Mac does not void its warranty.

This consumer protection is owed to the little known Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. Put simply, the act states that a company can’t require you to upgrade with only its own branded parts to retain the warranty. This important act protects your rights as a consumer and allows you to install upgrades with peace of mind confidence.

However, the warranty doesn’t cover any damage incurred while installing upgrades.

 

[mreg376]

This does not apply to the Apple warranty situation, those cited FTC letters were, by their own terms, not sent to any computer manufacturers, and Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. This is true whether the opposite is said once, or 50 times. MacSales/OWC is an authorized Apple reseller.

 

[tubeexperience]

This does not apply to the Apple warranty situation, those cited FTC letters were, by their own terms, not sent to any computer manufacturers, and Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. This is true whether the opposite is said once, or 50 times. MacSales/OWC is an authorized Apple reseller.

Section 102 (c) of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article or service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of “unauthorized” articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer’s purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, “use only an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer” or “use only ‘ABC’ replacement parts,” is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by “unauthorized” articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

 

[mreg376]

Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. This is true whether the opposite is said once, or 50 times.

 

[tubeexperience]

Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. This is true whether the opposite is said once, or 50 times.

Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was damaged by a non-authorized service provider.

This is in compliant with the Section 102 (c) of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which said:

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article or service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of “unauthorized” articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer’s purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, “use only an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer” or “use only ‘ABC’ replacement parts,” is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by “unauthorized” articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

 

[mreg376]

Yes, that's true too. But Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. People should understand this before listening to advice that simply says their warranty "cannot be voided," which even if technically true, won't help them. Most people don't want to go from an Apple store into a lawsuit, at the same time being stuck with a broken iMac.

 

[tubeexperience]

Yes, that's true too. But Apple regularly refuses to work on any machine that it determines was opened by a non-authorized service provider. People should understand this before listening to advice that simply says their warranty "cannot be voided," which even if technically true, won't help them. Most people don't want to go from an Apple store into a lawsuit, at the same time being stuck with a broken iMac.

So what you are saying is that Apple don't give a **** about the laws and is openly violating the laws.

 

[mreg376]

Look, like I said from the beginning. I'm not defending Apple, and laws are always open to interpretation. How a court will decide this is unknown. I'm only saying that the honest approach is, if you think Apple cannot legally void its warranty under these circumstances, say so, as you have been, but include the caveat that Apple can and does refuse warranty work if they think the machine was opened. If you want to say "sometimes,' then say sometimes. But at least people will have all the actual facts, and know of the possible consequences, when deciding whether to open their iMacs.

 

[tubeexperience]

Look, like I said from the beginning. I'm not defending Apple, and laws are always open to interpretation. How a court will decide this is unknown. I'm only saying that the honest approach is, if you think Apple cannot legally void its warranty under these circumstances, say so, as you have been, but include the caveat that Apple can and does refuse warranty work if they think the machine was opened. If you want to say "sometimes,' then say sometimes. But at least people will have all the actual facts, and know of the possible consequences, when deciding whether to open their iMacs.

It's an open and shut case.

 

[mreg376]

@tubeexperience, you claim that Apple has done warranty work on your iMac after you opened it. That may be true, but it's also true that this forum and the Internet, and Youtube are replete with users who have had the opposite experience. You are apparently very knowledgeable and I'm just asking that you do not ignore that reality when giving advice.
[doublepost=1530972199][/doublepost]

It's an open and shut case.

Maybe, but cases are won in court, and few people want to spend the money and time to go there.

 

[tubeexperience]

@tubeexperience, you claim that Apple has done warranty work on your iMac after you opened it. That may be true, but it's also true that this forum and the Internet, and Youtube are replete with users who have had the opposite experience. You are apparently very knowledgeable and I'm just asking that you do not ignore that reality when giving advice.
[doublepost=1530972199][/doublepost]

Maybe, but cases are won in court, and few people want to spend the money and time to go there.

I have actually seen some of these cases.

In all these cases, Apple denied warranty because, even though the devices continued to function, the devices were not repaired/serviced properly (ie. missing screws, screws in the wrong places, missing parts, etc.).