I'm not an expert... but just by he looks of it:
Normal, removable batteries have thick cases. The ones that are glued in, don't. They are basically just the naked battery w/o any plastic she'll around them...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Waiting for the 2018 MBP
- Thread starter benface
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not an expert... but just by he looks of it:
Normal, removable batteries have thick cases. The ones that are glued in, don't. They are basically just the naked battery w/o any plastic she'll around them...
Glue takes up essentially zero space compared to the components needed to hold in a removal battery. Clips and locks etc.
Most of these replacements you listed are arguably much less impactful/necessary with today's MBPs compared to one from 2011, are they? For example, the upgrade from an SSD (which all current MBPs ship with) to a faster SSD is not even remotely comparable to the jump from an HDD to an SSD, and I doubt most owners of current MBPs will ever feel the need for a faster storage drive. Similarly, while there are absolutely people that would profit from a 32GB RAM MBP, the jump from 16GB to 32+ GB of RAM is nowhere near the performance impact of switching from 8GB or even just 4GB up to 16GB.
And replacing the charger is just as possible with current models as it was back with a 2011 one – it has arguably become even easier than before since MagSafe was an Apple-proprietary technology whereas USB-C cables is about to become an industry standard, and USB-C chargers come with many laptops and Android phones nowadays.
I'm not saying that there is no value in being able to replace certain parts of the MBP, there absolutely can be; but I don't think everything that made sense to be replacable 7-8 years ago needs to be replacable in today's laptops aswell just for the sake of it. When given the choice between replacable RAM, SSD, etc. but a larger, heavier, bulkier laptop design that's more difficult to carry around, and between the sleek light MBP formfactor that we have now with otherwise identical (but non-upgradable) specs, then I'd most certainly choose the last of the two.
Upgrade from 128 GB to 1 TB, however, seems to make a difference. Apple charge extra THOUSAND EURO if you want to upgrade at purchase.
Fair enough; that's a good point. And yeah I agree, Apple's SSD prices are a bit ridiculous.
Is it probable that Apple will release the new models using the current currency exchange rates? Because it is quite a difference between the rate a yea ago and the current one - 1 USD : 1 EUR and 1 USD: 0,81 EUR, for my country 26 CZK / USD then vs. 20,5 CZK now, respectively.
Its not as bad as you'd think actually.
High end 15in MBP comes with 512 standard. If you take the samsung 960 pro M.2 drive (closest comparison in terms of specs) prices, 1tb costs $623 and 512gb $299. So a $323 price difference and Apple charges $400 for the upgrade.
I wouldn't get my hopes up for it. Apple's two newest product releases, the iMac Pro and the iPhone X, both more or less follow the same conversion rates that they used before: the iPhone X is $999 in the US and in the EU (at least in my country) starts at 1149€; the iMac Pro is $4999 USD and more than 5500€ respectively (and no microcenter-like deals here, unfortunately, 5500€ are 5500€ for us).
Even accounting for the fact that EU prices are always including taxes whereas US prices are not, this is pretty conform to Apple's previous price conversions. So I really wouldn't hold out for any changes in that regard anytime soon.
I do generally agree with this as we're hitting a point of diminishing returns for most of the tech. (Extra cores will make a big difference, though). For me the biggest pain point is the cost of 1tb of SSD storage right now. I'm thinking the next model I buy will be 512gb/16gb, but that will leave me no option to upgrade to 1tb in the future. $400 extra is a hell of a lot for that storage.
Does anyone think that we will see the new MacBook Pro update’s in June? I think WWDC or earlier is the best option other wise if Apple go past WWDC then it will have been beyond a year (since they were last updated at WWDC in June 2017).
It would be interesting to see if Apple hold a March or April event this year.
It would be interesting to see if Apple hold a March or April event this year.
HomePod was priced more favourably though, so I would say there is some hope, if the exchange rates persist.
If the recent trends continue and the pound and euro continue to grow strength against the dollar. Apple will have no choice but to adjust prices or risk loosing even more sales in the region. Right now, a 15” MacBook Pro is over 10% more expensive in the UK compared to the states and that margin is increasing daily.
HomePod pricing reflects currency rates at the start of 2018 so I think it’s fair to assume we’ll see some movement in other products this year as they’re refreshed also.
I really hope we'll see them in March, but at worst in June, yeah.
Is there an event in March? I feel like all signs point to June (I am in dire need of one now so march would be incredible).
We don't know yet, but there was one in 2016, 2015, 2012, 2011...
They've had spring events, but if the MBPs are just spec bumps or slight revisions (hey, there's a physical escape key but the touch bars still there, etc.) I doubt they'd give it an event even bundled with other Mac or Watch, etc. news.
It also depends on when Intel ships processors. Coffee Lake is slow to come out.
The only issue is that the current MBPs already come with highest amount of fastest RAM they could every support (due to CPU limitations, in fact, the RAM is custom config that is not officially supported by the CPU), and the SSD is faster than your laptop with a SATA connection could ever support. Battery is replaceable, just not user replaceable. Replacing chargers is easier then ever, since they are now fully modular — and also officially compatible with third-party charging. The only thing about upgradeability that rubs me the wrong way is that you can't easily swap to a higher-capacity SSD afterwards.
Though Apple's SSD upgrade prices, while still pretty high, are more reasonable than they've ever been.
Given the performance of the SSDs, they are. Other vendors, e.g. Dell charge more if I remember correctly. But the problem is that storage size demands, unlike RAM, are often difficult to predict and also can change quickly. So being able to upgrade the SSD capacity wold certainly be appreciated.
I agree, especially an additional M.2 slot would be amazing. Given how "thick and heavy" especially the 13" MacBook Pro is now compared to some of the competition, they surely could fit one in there (even if they wouldn't support the full length, there are actually shorter M.2 SSDs out there). They probably just don't want to.
That is not actually true. They could have easily used 32GB of DDR4 but Apple said it would have had an impact on battery life.
How much? It is difficult to tell, probabily less than 1 or 2 hour of battery time (8h of battery time is well enough for me).
But, because for the sake of useless thinness they dumbly decided to slash 25% of battery capacity (on the 15"), it would have been probably a real issue
Right, I should have been more specific. What I meant is of course "within the specification limits of the RAM Apple choose to support".
And yes, there would have been a substantial impact on battery life. As in — increase of idle power consumption by 50% at least. Power consumption figures of the elaptops and of DDR4 are a matter of public record after all
So 1-2 hours decrease is the most optimistic scenario even with the 100Wh battery.P.S. There is a reason why everyone and their grandma is using LPDDR3 today in their premium laptops (Microsoft, Dell etc.)
[doublepost=1517827688][/doublepost]
They charge $400 as the price difference between the 512GB and the 1TB
And Apple is right. The difference in power drain is not small. DDR4, depending on exact specifications and measurements, can use 30% more active power, and more critically, 900% more standby power. JEDEC, for example, states that the remaining "connected standby time" with 10% charge remaining would be 20 hours using DDR3L (which should be comparable to DDR4), but 35 hours using LPDDR3.
Some resources on that:
https://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/Mian_Welcome_final.pdf
https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/supporting-information/DWF13_AMF_ENT_T1070.pdf
And in addition to this, LPDDR3 seems to have some lower power modes that DDR4 doesn't have. So while the active power usage are not that different (DDR4 is very power efficient after all), idling makes a bit difference in practice.