What does Apple have against upgrading? Do you even care?

[Rhyalus]

Leman,

So many points are wrong in your last post, I don't know how to begin.

I'll just stick to the two main topics;

"16GB of RAM is not nearly enough". My other laptop (a Clevo P170EM) has 32GB and I use it. How can you possibly say that 16 will never be used - did I misunderstand you?

SSD performance is improving all of the time; both in capacity as well as speed. This technology has years ahead of it in terms of users potentially wanted to replace their current drives. Nothing is near any theoretical limit... again, did I misunderstand what you were saying?

R

----------

With regards to the industry as a whole, there are needs for several kinds of devices, and manufacturers will present products that fall in-between - take the idiotic "phablet" fad, for instance.

So some here are saying that if I want an "ultrabook" like product, I should simply accept that it is "impossible" to have user replaceable parts. What nonsense... the new rMBP 13" is 2mm thinner than the cMBP....

Let's say such a thing is ultimately true and that technology will not improve constantly, rendering even the thinnest devices accessible... then make the Air the non-upgradeable platform and keep the MBP upgradeable.

Anyone that says that this whole thing is not motivated by GREED doesn't understand Apple's business approach.

R

 

[Liquinn]

Leman,

So many points are wrong in your last post, I don't know how to begin.

I'll just stick to the two main topics;

"16GB of RAM is not nearly enough". My other laptop (a Clevo P170EM) has 32GB and I use it. How can you possibly say that 16 will never be used - did I misunderstand you?

SSD performance is improving all of the time; both in capacity as well as speed. This technology has years ahead of it in terms of users potentially wanted to replace their current drives. Nothing is near any theoretical limit... again, did I misunderstand what you were saying?

R

----------

With regards to the industry as a whole, there are needs for several kinds of devices, and manufacturers will present products that fall in-between - take the idiotic "phablet" fad, for instance.

So some here are saying that if I want an "ultrabook" like product, I should simply accept that it is "impossible" to have user replaceable parts. What nonsense... the new rMBP 13" is 2mm thinner than the cMBP....

Let's say such a thing is ultimately true and that technology will not improve constantly, rendering even the thinnest devices accessible... then make the Air the non-upgradeable platform and keep the MBP upgradeable.

Anyone that says that this whole thing is not motivated by GREED doesn't understand Apple's business approach.

R

Well, I guess Apple would rather you buy the RAM upgrades from them.

 

[Mackan]

If you're friend really wanted something that would last 5 + years then they should have spent the extra money and invested in a pro model. You can't expect a base model macbook to be supported forever. Secondly, you're not being forced by apple to have to use mountain lion and iTunes 11. If what they have works fine, then why complain you can't upgrade? Sure it's nice to have the latest and greatest, but at least apple products last, and will continue to work. If it's something they want rather than something to fill a need, well then go buy a new machine...

I have a 2007 MBP that can run mountain lion if I choose. I'm still on snow leopard because it will run more efficiently with that hardware. I just ordered a rMBP but my old MBP still runs and I will keep it until it doesn't anymore...

I think the point is that Apple by purpose drops support for older models, despite there being no real technical reason to. I've been following this Mac upgrade circus for over 6 years, and Apple is very aggressive in dropping support for older hardware if they can.

Companies never want to support older models longer than they have to. In the end, they just want your money, and if they think not enough people will complain, they will gladly try to omit support for a certain model in their system requirements, whenever a new software product/version is released.

If you ask me, not being able to upgrade RAM or SSD on these new retina models is a joke. Unfortunately, it's all going this way now in the computer industry. You simply have to buy a damn new computer when your 4 GB of RAM or 128 GB SSD is not enough to cut it anymore. And always a very expensive one, since it's an Apple.

 

[Rhyalus]

Well, I guess Apple would rather you buy the RAM upgrades from them.

Ya think????


R

 

[bill-p]

So some here are saying that if I want an "ultrabook" like product, I should simply accept that it is "impossible" to have user replaceable parts. What nonsense... the new rMBP 13" is 2mm thinner than the cMBP....

Uhh... no.

cMBP (both 13" and 15") are 2.41cm thick or 24.1mm.
rMBP 13" is 1.9cm or 19mm thick. It's roughly a 5mm shave.

And the rMBP 13" has a much larger battery than the cMBP counterpart.

So please get your facts straight before you start speculating.

 

[KPOM]

Leman,

So many points are wrong in your last post, I don't know how to begin.

I'll just stick to the two main topics;

"16GB of RAM is not nearly enough". My other laptop (a Clevo P170EM) has 32GB and I use it. How can you possibly say that 16 will never be used - did I misunderstand you?

SSD performance is improving all of the time; both in capacity as well as speed. This technology has years ahead of it in terms of users potentially wanted to replace their current drives. Nothing is near any theoretical limit... again, did I misunderstand what you were saying?

R

But even an "upgradable" notebook has a physical limit. And there is a current limit to SATA III. Plug that SATA V drive into your 2013 "upgradable" notebook in 2016 and you'll get - SATA III speeds.

That is not to say there is no merit to upgradability. It certainly is nice to be able to squeeze an few months or a year out of an older notebook, but it isn't going to keep it state of the art any longer. The people who complain the loudest about the lack of upgradability are probably also the people who buy new most often.

 

[Rhyalus]

Uhh... no.

cMBP (both 13" and 15") are 2.41cm thick or 24.1mm.
rMBP 13" is 1.9cm or 19mm thick. It's roughly a 5mm shave.

And the rMBP 13" has a much larger battery than the cMBP counterpart.

So please get your facts straight before you start speculating.

Before I posted I checked the Apple website... I read the wrong units...I stand corrected.

13" base rMBP is .75 inches thick.
13" base cMBP is .95 inches thick.

This is indeed ~ 5mm.

I am not sure that this is enough to convince anyone that user installable RAM would be impossible in this footprint, though.

R

 

[leman]

Leman,

So many points are wrong in your last post, I don't know how to begin.

I'll just stick to the two main topics;

"16GB of RAM is not nearly enough". My other laptop (a Clevo P170EM) has 32GB and I use it. How can you possibly say that 16 will never be used - did I misunderstand you?

Nope, I am saying that the CPU/GPU/RAM bandwidth will start crippling future everyday software earlier than having 16GB will. There are plenty of uses for having lots of RAM - working with very large datasets or using a large number of virtual machines comes to mind. But these uses are very niche and the rMBP - or any laptop is not the best candidate if you are doing that kind of work in the first place. You'd want a workstation.

I have 16GB RAM in my rMBP and I have never seen a single page out - and I work with dozens of applications at the same stuff and run complex numeric simulations on my machine all the time. Well, actually, it did page out once - when I coded a simulation badly and it went hogging RAM.

SSD performance is improving all of the time; both in capacity as well as speed. This technology has years ahead of it in terms of users potentially wanted to replace their current drives. Nothing is near any theoretical limit... again, did I misunderstand what you were saying?

Theoretical limit of SATA3 is 600Mb/sec. My factory SSD already gives me speeds around 500Mb/sec. There is not that much space to push it further.

Anyone that says that this whole thing is not motivated by GREED doesn't understand Apple's business approach.

My point is: I am not sure that Apple would been able to produce a thin 2kg laptop with that hardware without sacrificing upgradeability. For me, 0.5kg reduction in weight is clearly worth any questionable - not to say non-existing - utility from being able to upgrade RAM. Sure, I'd like to be able to put a new SSD in there in a year or two, when prices go down and capacity goes up; but this is the only thing I would criticise on the rMBP.

 

[T5BRICK]

I am not sure that this is enough to convince anyone that user installable RAM would be impossible in this footprint, though.

R

Keep in mind that the double RAM slot like the cMBP uses is just over 9mm thick. And area wise, it would take up significantly more space on the circuit board than just attaching the chips directly.

Ifixit does point out that edge mounted slots, similar to the old Macbook, could have been used. I believe that would have pushed into the space allocated for that battery.

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Unibody-Mid-2012-Teardown/9515/1

Anyway, I'm not saying that it couldn't be done, but I don't know if the reduction in thickness or battery life were acceptable to Apple.

 

[Radiating]

It seems like Apple is going in a pretty obvious direction. Whether it be strictly for aesthetic/form or to force us to purchase replacements more frequently....it seems like they are quickly abandoning any sort of upgradability in their next gen systems and I think it's only natural to expect that this will be their new norm (hopefully mac pros aside!?). How important is it to all of you? How often do you upgrade your laptops (MPBs)? Desktops (iMacs)? How often do you keep your computers on average? Is it even worth it to upgrade? It would also be helpful to know if you have any other computers in the house and how you use it (photographer vs student vs stay at home mom).

the 15" rMBP had nothing upgradable when it shipped, the 13" rMBP can take a normal 2.5" SSD due to the large cavity under the track pad for such an upgrade.

Apple would preffer to let everything be upgradable, but because they are pushing the boundaries or form and function, sometimes they have to make sacrafices.

 

[Rhyalus]

Apple would preffer to let everything be upgradable, but because they are pushing the boundaries or form and function, sometimes they have to make sacrafices.

Have you been communing with Steve Jobs or do you have a source for this perspective?



R

 

[bill-p]

Before I posted I checked the Apple website... I read the wrong units...I stand corrected.

13" base rMBP is .75 inches thick.
13" base cMBP is .95 inches thick.

This is indeed ~ 5mm.

I am not sure that this is enough to convince anyone that user installable RAM would be impossible in this footprint, though.

R

As pointed out, if Apple wanted to layer another slot on the motherboard for the RAM modules, it would have made the machine that much thicker.

Edge-mounted slot would have been possible, but it would leave less space for the battery, and even with the massive 95WHr capacity, the 15" rMBP can barely get about 4-5 hours. A far cry from the usual 7-8 hours I could get on my 2011 MBP 15" with the same usage.

The pros far outweigh the cons, of course, but it's clear that Apple couldn't have engineered the rMBP 15" differently.

The 13", on the other hand, is legitimately exactly as you say: motivated by GREED. There's a huge area under the trackpad that's not used for anything at all, and given the space, Apple could have made at least that model upgradeable, or added more components to it. It's 1mm thicker than the 15" version after all.

 

[Ploki]

Leman,

So many points are wrong in your last post, I don't know how to begin.

I'll just stick to the two main topics;

"16GB of RAM is not nearly enough". My other laptop (a Clevo P170EM) has 32GB and I use it. How can you possibly say that 16 will never be used - did I misunderstand you?

SSD performance is improving all of the time; both in capacity as well as speed. This technology has years ahead of it in terms of users potentially wanted to replace their current drives. Nothing is near any theoretical limit... again, did I misunderstand what you were saying?

OWC SSD gets 550-570mb/s r/w, the theoretical limit of SATA6G is 600mb/s. You have aproximately 30mb/s real-life bandwidth room.
Capacity can be upgraded via OWC when technology progresses, but speed? That's as much as you'll get, EVER.
It's the same as 2010/2011 laptops, you can't get 500mb/s speeds because of SATA2, so you *need* to replace the whole computer if you wish to get the performance the new drives offer.

16GB is enough with laptops especially with SSDs. If you need 32GB you probably need a lot more a laptop can offer. >> desktop offerings.

I have a friend with a desktop and with 32GB RAM and 3 SSDs, and he uses ALL of ram (31GB) for the same project I on 7200rpm disk use 8GB. Different OS, different tasks, different implementation.
TB RAID0 gives ********s of performance (nearing 900mb/s, half speed of RAM of 5y old laptops) on a SINGLE out of 2 discrete thunderbolt ports. (+2 usb 3.0 ports) + discrete HDMI port.

16GB RAM in rMBP hits 99.9% bandwidth of QPI. It is saturated actually.
It is optimized to the last ****ing detail.
http://goo.gl/wDQVq
please read the footnote. Here is the excerpt:

I suspect they didn’t go any higher than 16GB because the capacitive loading of the memory bus would have prevented them from achieving such magnificent throughput.

MPG has the most balanced reviews on this planet otherwise.

rMBP squeezes everything it can out of the current architecture. + Dual TB ports... you can't pack any more into this architecture. It literally running on the edge of it.

Computer design will go into merging storage+memory into one as soon as speeds catch up.

As pointed out, if Apple wanted to layer another slot on the motherboard for the RAM modules, it would have made the machine that much thicker.

Edge-mounted slot would have been possible, but it would leave less space for the battery, and even with the massive 95WHr capacity, the 15" rMBP can barely get about 4-5 hours. A far cry from the usual 7-8 hours I could get on my 2011 MBP 15" with the same usage.

The pros far outweigh the cons, of course, but it's clear that Apple couldn't have engineered the rMBP 15" differently.

The 13", on the other hand, is legitimately exactly as you say: motivated by GREED. There's a huge area under the trackpad that's not used for anything at all, and given the space, Apple could have made at least that model upgradeable, or added more components to it. It's 1mm thicker than the 15" version after all.

Hybrid Scorpio Black with 5mm thickness is already shipping to OEMs (space for proprietary connector).
It fits the area under the trackpad perfectly.
Expect a 13" rMBP with hybrid("fusion") drive with a price tag of 1299$, cMBP canceled, and MBA being the entry model.

 

[Radiating]

As pointed out, if Apple wanted to layer another slot on the motherboard for the RAM modules, it would have made the machine that much thicker.

Edge-mounted slot would have been possible, but it would leave less space for the battery, and even with the massive 95WHr capacity, the 15" rMBP can barely get about 4-5 hours. A far cry from the usual 7-8 hours I could get on my 2011 MBP 15" with the same usage.

The pros far outweigh the cons, of course, but it's clear that Apple couldn't have engineered the rMBP 15" differently.

The 13", on the other hand, is legitimately exactly as you say: motivated by GREED. There's a huge area under the trackpad that's not used for anything at all, and given the space, Apple could have made at least that model upgradeable, or added more components to it. It's 1mm thicker than the 15" version after all.

The area under the trackpad fits a 2.5" off the shelf SSD... and makes the trackpad user replacable.

 

[unobtainium]

The only reason is because of the extremely thin form factors. In order to keep making the designs more thin, they have to sacrifice something. It doesn't bother me, because you can always sell your devices on the used market and upgrade every few years. So I don't really see the big deal.

 

[Ploki]

The area under the trackpad fits a 2.5" off the shelf SSD... and makes the trackpad user replacable.

Not every SSD though, only 7mm ones, 5mm aren't even on the market yet,
and 9.5mm are too thick.

 

[T5BRICK]

Not every SSD though, only 7mm ones, 5mm aren't even on the market yet,
and 9.5mm are too thick.

Most new SSDs are 7mm anyway.

 

[GermanyChris]

You are a moron (I do not say this lightly). How in any way is OS X a closed system? You have based this on no evidence.

Remind me again what OS X is built on? Oh! UNIX! Wow!

EDIT: Oh and those complaining about non-upgradability about newer Macs, then don't buy them. Period. Vote with your dollars. You'll see the price drop fast if you guys are in the right mindset. Sorry, why not have a beautiful machine that gets the job done and maintain a resell value?

Unix is proprietary, therefore not open.

 

[Philscbx]

It seems like Apple is going in a pretty obvious direction.
Whether it be strictly for aesthetic/form or to force us to purchase replacements more frequently...

The only thing that matters now is Stock Holders - So all upgrades of updates will circle around mobile devices to make desktop and lower to look similar to iPad.