Got to disagree there soldering RAM has many engineering benefits over RAM slots especially in a portable machine. Apple design their computers to provide the best overall user experience and soldered RAM is part of that equation. It may have a knock on effect of causing customers to buy new if they need more RAM but there is no evidence that that is the reason and a fair amount of evidence that it is a better design decision. I love the way that people will automatically see the worst intentions in a decision that they don't like.....
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.
Why are newer MacBook Pros not upgradeable
- Thread starter Aditya_S
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Got to disagree there soldering RAM has many engineering benefits over RAM slots especially in a portable machine. Apple design their computers to provide the best overall user experience and soldered RAM is part of that equation. It may have a knock on effect of causing customers to buy new if they need more RAM but there is no evidence that that is the reason and a fair amount of evidence that it is a better design decision. I love the way that people will automatically see the worst intentions in a decision that they don't like.....
So you're saying not allowing people to upgrade their ram after a period of time is in the best overall user experience? I think that's a stretch. Soldering the ram, has one big benefit for apple - upselling to the more expensive model. I see no benefit for the consumer, that is there is no best overal user experience to soldered ram.
Yes for the vast majority of users that is the case, it's more stable less likely to break and go wrong and helps allow for thinner lighter machines. As well over 90% of everyone I know has never upgraded a thing on any computer they own that is fairly safe assertion.
Soldered RAM has many benefits to Apple smaller mumber of components so a sleeker supply chain, better reliability so less in returns and fixes and technician costs, better design options for their logic boards allowing more flexibility in how their machines are designed and yes the ability to make things lighter and thinner which everyone loves.
However my point was that design decisions are made with many things in mind and in this modern world of £700 phones that people change every year, non upgradeable laptops are not a stretch at all.
[doublepost=1458130352][/doublepost]
I have to disagree, its less about user experience or technical improvements. Yes, MBPs are enjoying a tiny improvement in performance thanks to the soldered ram and they get to make laptops even thinner but again its more about their desire to upsell and forcing people to buy over upgrading.
They have an obsession with thinness and that's quire evident, I have no idea why, but as you noted soldering the ram allows them to shrink the size the of the laptop even further.
They have an obsession with thinness and that's quire evident, I have no idea why, but as you noted soldering the ram allows them to shrink the size the of the laptop even further.
Size and weight actually make a big difference for most people, especially if they aren't focused on specs. Most people don't think "This laptop is so upgradable!", they think "This laptop is a lot easier to carry around all day!" When a device is 3-4#, taking off 0.5# is a pretty big deal (1/6 to 1/8 of the total weight). With the iPP vs iPA it's a bit more evident - 1# vs 1.5# is the difference between easy one handed use and something I need two hands to regularly use. An extra pound or two on my shoulder or back over the course of a day can make a big difference.
I'm interested to see if they can shrink the logic board to a size similar to the 12" rMB. That thing is a great example of how much things can actually shrink and make room for more battery with a significantly smaller form.
Yeah it sucks that things can't be upgraded and we have to deal with Apple's expensive parts, but it's not entirely without end user value.
There are several reasons for this -- these are the most likely in my mind...
1) More forced obsolescence. When you can't easily upgrade storage, and can't upgrade RAM at all, it gives you less ability to extend the useful life of a machine, which shortens the length of time between purchases.
Back when we could upgrade RAM and storage easily, machines weren't as quick to be replaced. In my case, it cut the lifespan of my machines in half, as I find I need more RAM, more storage, etc, and there's no really easy way to do it. Storage is at least generally on M.2-like sticks, so upgrade potential is there, but for how long?
2) Shrinkage. Apple is in this race-to-paper-thin mode, and once you hit a certain point, the brackets for RAM have to go away, access doors go away, ports drop off, etc. There's just no room for "unnecessary" things in this "thinner-is-better" mindset.
3) Increase revenue-per-unit. Let's say RAM was upgradeable. More people would probably buy a lower-end model and add more RAM later. By eliminating this possibility, it drives the initial purchase price up, as people will generally buy "more than they need" right now if the price delta between models isn't too dramatic.
This is all compounded by the fact that Macs are still selling very well -- so Apple takes that as confirmation that what they're doing is fine (and even desired) with their customers.
1) More forced obsolescence. When you can't easily upgrade storage, and can't upgrade RAM at all, it gives you less ability to extend the useful life of a machine, which shortens the length of time between purchases.
Back when we could upgrade RAM and storage easily, machines weren't as quick to be replaced. In my case, it cut the lifespan of my machines in half, as I find I need more RAM, more storage, etc, and there's no really easy way to do it. Storage is at least generally on M.2-like sticks, so upgrade potential is there, but for how long?
2) Shrinkage. Apple is in this race-to-paper-thin mode, and once you hit a certain point, the brackets for RAM have to go away, access doors go away, ports drop off, etc. There's just no room for "unnecessary" things in this "thinner-is-better" mindset.
3) Increase revenue-per-unit. Let's say RAM was upgradeable. More people would probably buy a lower-end model and add more RAM later. By eliminating this possibility, it drives the initial purchase price up, as people will generally buy "more than they need" right now if the price delta between models isn't too dramatic.
This is all compounded by the fact that Macs are still selling very well -- so Apple takes that as confirmation that what they're doing is fine (and even desired) with their customers.
Have to agree with maflynn, as it (seems) to be about the upgrading of systems unit to unit for the end user. Personally, this is my first Apple product (macbook pro 13" retina, 8 gb, 128gb SSD, mid 2015). I really had to think long and hard about spending the money I did for this unit in coming from the PC world where I could get a lot more system for 1/2 the price. The other aspect that was daunting was the upgrade price is storage (SSD). So, factors such as entry price point, ability to upgrade, size, longevity, all play a factor in determining who you buy, how long you keep it and more so, how deep are your pockets. I have to admit, though, I really do like the macbook pro for the size and performance and maybe that is all relative to soldering ram vs push connections, SSD vs HDD and other factors. Always a debatable subject.
There's definitely some benefits to the end user in regards to apple's decisions on making things thin - at least with the laptops.
However, on the iMac front, we see that apple has a sealed computer that is non-upgradeable (the 5k can upgrade the ram) and when I say sealed, I mean sealed. you need to break the glue bond to open it up. Also why do we need a razor thin design on a desktop computer? The prior models of the iMac have had cooling issues, and while the current Skylake iMac runs fairly cool, I don't get the idea of having it so thin.
So to summarize, yes, there are some benefits, some small (slight performance boost in soldered ram), to bigger benefits (lighter laptop) but overall I believe the idea behind much of the design of the MBP, iMac, and Mini is to sell disposable computers that cannot be upgraded, forcing people to buy new machines.
There is no real authentic reason besides what Apple has choose to do. I miss the days of upgrading ram from B&H.
As I look at the previous posts...I can't help to think that if a battery or HD/SSD were to fail, you have to get a whole new expensive Mac. BTO or not...
It's like saying if you had a flat tire, you have to replace that entire wheel assembly that includes the braking/suspension system...
It's like saying if you had a flat tire, you have to replace that entire wheel assembly that includes the braking/suspension system...
If the SSD fails, they replace the SSD. If the battery fails, they replace the top case.
The car comparisons rarely work out.
Seriously?
, I thought they were soldiered and/or connected into the board so you couldn't replace them?- For the SSD, it's its own module secured by a screw in a PCIe slot. Very easy to replace. For the battery, usually the whole top case with battery, keyboard and trackpad is replaced due to the battery being glued into the unit.Seriously?
Seriously?
No, the SSD is plugged into a proprietary slot but it is replaceable. The battery is glued into the top case, so it's not easy to replace but it CAN be replaced.
The main complaint left is the RAM that is actually soldered in. Fortunately all rMBP models currently ship with at least 8GB of RAM which is plenty for most uses. The 15" models all ship with 16GB.
Agreed. Apple made record high profits last year going from 38% to 40%. It seems a lot of the head-scratching decisions Apple is making, like soldering ram on a desktop machine aligns more with the goal of going after record high profits than with user experience/benefit.
Really? Because it really destroyed a laptop's reliability to put a little screwed on section that covered an area to eject RAM and upgrade?
It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Apple charges exorbitant prices for RAM, right?
I could almost see your point for hard drives, because you usually had to do a lot more to get to them, but then we can also look at Apple's mark-up on hard drives.
I like Apple's current products, but it is hard to believe that they aren't motivated quite a bit in this department by money rather than the convenience or well-being of the consumer. I have a very old MacBook that could be upgraded. It has a removable battery that I once switched out because it ran out of charges. I upgraded the RAM and the hard drive. It still works great. But I finally got a new laptop after 6 years because you can't upgrade anything else. But I would have upgraded 1-2 earlier if I could not have been able to upgrade.
My new Macbook? Can't upgrade anything and I will be upgrading in 2 years. Apple got me on that one.
A soldered, (mostly) permanent connection is inherently more reliable than a removable module and a socket. There are less potential points of failure.
Have you worked at an AASP? How many bad RAM slots have you had to deal with? From what I remember, and I will admit that it has been a while, a bad RAM slot was just as common as a bad RAM module.
The funny thing is that Apple RAM upgrade prices have actually gone down in price since they've moved to current non-upgradeable solution.
Keep in mind that the people who actually upgrade their Macs (or computers in general) are in the minority. Most people buy a computer and use it for 3-6 years. When it doesn't suit their needs they trade in or give away the old one and buy a new one. You and I and a lot of folks on this forum don't fall into that category. We're the exception not the rule.
Do you have a source to support realistically how much of a concern this is in real life? I'm sure there might be some cases where a computer is thrown 20 feet into the air, and it lands into the ground resulting in ram module snapping off socket (and everything else getting destroyed as well
), but how common is the issue in real life use? Be honest please.So, for example why does Apple solder ram on low-end imac but not on high-end? Are low-end imacs bounced around the house or something? Are high-end imacs less reliable than low-end due to non-soldered ram? Please don't make up ridiculous unrealistic claims and be honest admit what's really behind this. The fact is Apple made record-high profits last year from 38% to 40%, where do you think Apple is squeezing extra profits from? Soldered ram, ssd, etc forces people to upgrade, it's a fact.
Wrong. Fact is new OSX releases have historically required more RAM, that's a fact. So if you keep your mac 3-5 years (or more) as you upgrade OSX each year, it's a desirable feature having the possibility of upgrading ram as needed. Most of my macs, from friends and family have gotten ram/hdd upgrades. Even casual users that have no idea about the tech side, but they know their computer is sluggish, when they ask around their tech friends or take machine to their local tech shop (or genius bar) they get the upgrades there.
Last edited:
There is an additional connection between the memory and the logic board. Why do you assume it takes a 20 foot drop to cause a RAM socket to fail? Sometimes it takes a bent pin on the socket from a user who isn't being careful when installing new RAM.
Either way, I don't have any hard numbers related to Apple products because I don't work at that AASP anymore. I can tell you from a design standpoint that simpler is better. Less moving parts is more reliable.
It has nothing to do with a computer being "bounced around." You've obviously formed your own opinion and nothing I say is going to change your mind.
So if someone doesn't agree with you it's a "ridiculous unrealistic claim." But because Apple profits are up from 38% to 40% it's obviously related to non upgradeable components? That makes your opinion a fact?
Don't ask someone else to come up with hard facts if your not willing to accept that your whole premise is based on an opinion.
You're correct that new OSX releases require more RAM. El Capitan requires a whole 2GB!
I've used several mid 2012 MBP with stock 4GB of RAM and they run El Capitan just fine.
My old mid 2009 MBP shipped with 4GB of RAM and it'll even run El Capitan.
I know plenty of people who will use a computer stock, with no hardware upgrades, for the entire useful life of that computer. Sometimes that's 3 years. Other times it's 8 years. I know a few folks who are using stock original MacBooks from 2007-2008.
Anyway, we're both operating on our personal experience here, so it's not like your experience is any more or less valid than mine. I doubt we'll come to any kind of agreement...so...moving on.
There is an additional connection between the memory and the logic board. Why do you assume it takes a 20 foot drop to cause a RAM socket to fail? Sometimes it takes a bent pin on the socket from a user who isn't being careful when installing new RAM.
Either way, I don't have any hard numbers related to Apple products because I don't work at that AASP anymore. I can tell you from a design standpoint that simpler is better. Less moving parts is more reliable.
It has nothing to do with a computer being "bounced around." You've obviously formed your own opinion and nothing I say is going to change your mind.
So if someone doesn't agree with you it's a "ridiculous unrealistic claim." But because Apple profits are up from 38% to 40% it's obviously related to non upgradeable components? That makes your opinion a fact?
Don't ask someone else to come up with hard facts if your not willing to accept that your whole premise is based on an opinion.
You're correct that new OSX releases require more RAM. El Capitan requires a whole 2GB!
I've used several mid 2012 MBP with stock 4GB of RAM and they run El Capitan just fine.
My old mid 2009 MBP shipped with 4GB of RAM and it'll even run El Capitan.
I know plenty of people who will use a computer stock, with no hardware upgrades, for the entire useful life of that computer. Sometimes that's 3 years. Other times it's 8 years. I know a few folks who are using stock original MacBooks from 2007-2008.
Anyway, we're both operating on our personal experience here, so it's not like your experience is any more or less valid than mine. I doubt we'll come to any kind of agreement...so...moving on.
So suppose 0.0000001% of computers have failures due to ram module magically falling of socket, does this justify Apple in soldering it? If you don't have hard numbers, and I tried finding some on google to support your claim and couldn't find anything, why are you arrogantly claiming Apple's decisions is for reliability? And why are you utterly dismissing the possibility it's simply due for profits and not for the end user benefit? Or are you open to this possibility?
I'll tell you what, I'm open to the possibility of it being for reliability if I see facts regarding this to support this. Until then, the fact remains soldered ram forces the user to upgrade ram at time of purchase (if wanted) which locks user into giving more "profits" to Apple rather than buying 3rd party ram module. Or are you arguing that's not factual?
Here is an article written in 2001 that talks about some of the benefits and drawbacks of a socketed component vs a component that is soldered directly. Note that there aren't any hard numbers, but it explains WHY a socket can be an issue from a reliability standpoint.
http://www.imaps.org/journal/2001/q1/liu.pdf
Basically the benefits that are listed are all of your arguments for socketed RAM, and all of the drawbacks are my arguments for soldered RAM. There are good reasons for both, and I'm not saying upgradeability is a bad thing. I'm just saying that I place a higher value on reliability and I'm willing to accept the trade off.
I'm not arguing with you on this point. If a user wants more RAM, they'll have to pay Apple for the upgrade. If this is actually the reason why Apple has had increased profits is questionable, but it could be a contributing factor so I won't rule it out.