Don't get me started on the 5400rpm/4k fiasco and the soldered SSD cable, because, obviously no one would want to upgrade that 5400 later on right?
I predict soldered SSDs for next get macbooks, get ready guys.
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
Don't get me started on the 5400rpm/4k fiasco and the soldered SSD cable, because, obviously no one would want to upgrade that 5400 later on right?
I predict soldered SSDs for next get macbooks, get ready guys.
If the new MacBook Pro have solder soldered, I am sure that this is what some people will say:
"Most people don't care about upgrading the SSDs.
If their SSDs are full, the solution is to get new computers."
Mmm, no. Its was on a fairly typical data aggregation/analysis script that I wrote for a paper some time ago. Sure, with efficient software the speedup won't be as dramatic. Unfortunately, I have to use certain tools which forces me to reload 500MB large datasets every time the analysis is run.
Few posts above yours I have gave you an fairly detailed account on why doing in-house repairs or updates would cost us ton of money.
Funny, I don't recall someone showing that 'my claims are not correct' (I'm talking about the main points here, not the little details like when exactly you bought your laptop). If I wanted to point out instances of false or at least unrealistic claims that would be things like 'Apple hides the fact that the laptops are not upgradeable' (nope, its right there on their website), 'customer would not buy Macs if they knew that they would not be upgradeable' (says who?), 'replacing memory is cheap, so IT departments should do those repairs themselves' (nope, would cost me much more then sending this things off to be repaired under warranty) etc. etc.
[doublepost=1458946878][/doublepost]
This is a very good point. However, it is also somehow orthogonal to our discussion. I completely agree with you that shipping a premium computer that has 4GB RAM and 128GB SSD in this day and age is scandalous (I am also quite sure that I have mentioned this in my earlier posts). However, the simplest solution to this would be Apple bumping the minimal RAM to 8GB stock across the line. And its indeed upsetting that they haven't done this yet.
Now, imagine they did and that all Macs come with at least 8GB RAM standard. Would you still say that upgradeability is a necessary feature or would you agree that its becoming less interesting?
[doublepost=1458947447][/doublepost]
Just as a final note: I couldn't agree more with your comment!
Maybe, but that's not the case and has never been since Apple started soldering ram. There are some heart-breaking macbook airs with 2gb soldered ram. Apple has and will always play the ram game, and what seems pretty decent today, may not be in a couple of years, that's how it's always been.
You aren't making any sense here. What "important facts about their purchase that are hidden by the vendor"? The fact that the RAM isn't upgradeable? That isn't hidden. It is published on their website. If you were to ask a salesperson at an Apple store, they'd tell you. Nothing is hidden.
You're doing this again? Are you completely oblivious? You straight up said, and I'm quoting you directly here:
Do you see that? You claim that Apple "force their customers to buy crippled system."
The PC market itself is actually shrinking at the moment. Are you claiming that the market which cares about upgradeability is growing? Do you have data to back this up?
The current data shows that Apple market share is growing, even when the overall market itself is declining. Eventually
This isn't part of the conversation, so I'm just ignoring it and moving on...
We've had this conversation before. You're trying to convince people that your subjective measure of performance is in some way a "fact." I don't think you understand what facts are.
A faster computer does make a difference in normal work, if you're actually using it for work. If you're a basic user who just wants to surf the internet and type up a word document, sure it doesn't matter. It sounds like you fall into that category.
I think you need to look up the definition of "fact" in a dictionary. A 2015 13" rMBP is faster than your 2012 13" MBP. That is a fact based on measurable performance points. If the newer Mac isn't worth it to you, that is a subjective decision you're making and not based on the FACT that the newer rMBP is actually faster.
@ T5BRICK
1) you are still ignoring all FACTS about performance benchmarks I mentioned.
AGAIN: Go to everymac.com and look about the benchmarks there.
the 2015 MBP has only about 7-9% more performance than the 2012 model.
You just ignore the facts and call me a "basic user" who does not need the enormous gain of performance of tzhe 2015 models over the 2012 models?
Man, you don´t know what you are talking about - look at the benchmarks of the models at everymac.com and stop talking fairy tales… just READ the numbers and stop writing and claiming things that don´t exist in reality but only in your phantasy.
---> SHOW ME the benchmarks! I did this already about 2-3 months before - but people like you just ignore this.
The 2015 MBP is not much faster, even if you claim this again and again. It is just 7-9% more which is NOTHING in REAL LIFE.
This is not my "Subjective measure" as you claim - I am talking about objective BENCHMARKS !!!
2) about RAM: Apple claimed often that the max Ram is (for example) 8 GB. Thanks to older models with exchangeable RAM we know that this is WRONG and these models are easily upgradable to 16 GB RAM. I see this as a try of apple to claim "virtual obsolescence" for older models. RAM can fail. The ONLY reason to solder RAM in an computer is to get more money out of the wallet of its customers, ignoring their problem if they need one day more RAM than before or just a simple exchange of failing RAM which will be impossible then.
You tell me the "information about soldered Ram is on their website" Show me the information in the website of the apple shop, please!
You tell me, the salesperson in the apple shop would tell the customer if the customer asks for this information? You are kidding?
When all computers in the world - including apple´s own models until 2013 - have exchangeable SSDs and RAM, why for heaven´s sake should a normal customer ask if apple solders and glues the interiors in their products? This is ridiculous.
It is like selling cars without brakes and after the accident the seller just tells you: "Well - the customer did not ask if we installed brakes - he should have asked for them and I´d given a honest answer !"
3) about "forcing": You twisted my statement as you like it: People like you save themselves in discussions in the last moment in saying "Nobody is forced to buy an apple computer!" THAT was the statement I was talking about.
IN FACT this is the problem: 99% of the people don´t know that apple is the ONLY enterprise in the world that solders and glues consumer products - and they don´t communicate this. They hide this "secret" - and it is a secret, if you don´t tell this extremely important issue your customers. Show me any information about this in the specs of the apple shop. It is ridiculous to cite a apple SERVICE advice somewhere in the internet how to exchange RAM - and to claim a normal consumer could have found this information when he was thinking about a new apple computer.
And so my cited statement is absolutely correct: apple forces customers to buy more as they might need - and kills flexibility of computers to make more money. I call it slavery because this is just the opposite of customer care and customer-friendly. This will fall back on apple in the near future. Many thousands of customers will realize (too late) that they bought ZERO flexibility and ZERO repair-friendly products and they will not at all be amused.
4) You are funny:YOU claim that there is no or nearly ZERO market of 3rd party solutions concerning products and repair services - while they are growing and growing.
And when people like me talk about it. you just ignore it. You even ignore your OWN STATEMENT and claim "This is not part of the conversation" - very amusing indeed, regarding the fact that it was YOU who started talking about 3rd party solutions…
The dGPU-desaster of apple since now nearly 10 years is hard for someone like you - so you decide just to IGNORE it.
The apple policy about this is scandalous since now a decade: People like you claim "But they care - look, they have extended repair programs!!" IN FACT, they nearly never do this by themselves: THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED BY CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT and after they let their customers suffer for YEARS with the problem and the expensive consequences. And as always, they wait until the last moment to prevent a court decision and make a cheep deal called "Extended repair program". AFTER YEARS!
@ leman
If you think the costs of a failing computer in an enterprise is just the cost for the repair itself - and not the costs for someone who has to stop working and a disturbance of workflow in a department - then it is not me who needs advices about economy…..
But you admit at least that I have NOT an outdated computer without warranty as you stated, but a 2012 model, assembled in fall 2013 with still 6 months of warranty?
It is funny how people like you are stating things and ignore them after it is evident that you were wrong…
BTW: Even the 2011 models in our family are working well - like millions of other MBP worldwide. There would be much more of them if apple cared more about reliability of their products. It is not about max. performance, it is about QUALITY.
1) you are still ignoring all FACTS about performance benchmarks I mentioned.
AGAIN: Go to everymac.com and look about the benchmarks there.
the 2015 MBP has only about 7-9% more performance than the 2012 model.
You just ignore the facts and call me a "basic user" who does not need the enormous gain of performance of tzhe 2015 models over the 2012 models?
Man, you don´t know what you are talking about - look at the benchmarks of the models at everymac.com and stop talking fairy tales… just READ the numbers and stop writing and claiming things that don´t exist in reality but only in your phantasy.
---> SHOW ME the benchmarks! I did this already about 2-3 months before - but people like you just ignore this.
The 2015 MBP is not much faster, even if you claim this again and again. It is just 7-9% more which is NOTHING in REAL LIFE.
This is not my "Subjective measure" as you claim - I am talking about objective BENCHMARKS !!!
2) about RAM: Apple claimed often that the max Ram is (for example) 8 GB. Thanks to older models with exchangeable RAM we know that this is WRONG and these models are easily upgradable to 16 GB RAM. I see this as a try of apple to claim "virtual obsolescence" for older models. RAM can fail. The ONLY reason to solder RAM in an computer is to get more money out of the wallet of its customers, ignoring their problem if they need one day more RAM than before or just a simple exchange of failing RAM which will be impossible then.
You tell me the "information about soldered Ram is on their website" Show me the information in the website of the apple shop, please!
You tell me, the salesperson in the apple shop would tell the customer if the customer asks for this information? You are kidding?
When all computers in the world - including apple´s own models until 2013 - have exchangeable SSDs and RAM, why for heaven´s sake should a normal customer ask if apple solders and glues the interiors in their products? This is ridiculous.
It is like selling cars without brakes and after the accident the seller just tells you: "Well - the customer did not ask if we installed brakes - he should have asked for them and I´d given a honest answer !"
3) about "forcing": You twisted my statement as you like it: People like you save themselves in discussions in the last moment in saying "Nobody is forced to buy an apple computer!" THAT was the statement I was talking about.
IN FACT this is the problem: 99% of the people don´t know that apple is the ONLY enterprise in the world that solders and glues consumer products - and they don´t communicate this. They hide this "secret" - and it is a secret, if you don´t tell this extremely important issue your customers. Show me any information about this in the specs of the apple shop. It is ridiculous to cite a apple SERVICE advice somewhere in the internet how to exchange RAM - and to claim a normal consumer could have found this information when he was thinking about a new apple computer.
And so my cited statement is absolutely correct: apple forces customers to buy more as they might need - and kills flexibility of computers to make more money. I call it slavery because this is just the opposite of customer care and customer-friendly. This will fall back on apple in the near future. Many thousands of customers will realize (too late) that they bought ZERO flexibility and ZERO repair-friendly products and they will not at all be amused.
4) You are funny:YOU claim that there is no or nearly ZERO market of 3rd party solutions concerning products and repair services - while they are growing and growing.
And when people like me talk about it. you just ignore it. You even ignore your OWN STATEMENT and claim "This is not part of the conversation" - very amusing indeed, regarding the fact that it was YOU who started talking about 3rd party solutions…
The dGPU-desaster of apple since now nearly 10 years is hard for someone like you - so you decide just to IGNORE it.
The apple policy about this is scandalous since now a decade: People like you claim "But they care - look, they have extended repair programs!!" IN FACT, they nearly never do this by themselves: THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED BY CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT and after they let their customers suffer for YEARS with the problem and the expensive consequences. And as always, they wait until the last moment to prevent a court decision and make a cheep deal called "Extended repair program". AFTER YEARS!
@ leman
If you think the costs of a failing computer in an enterprise is just the cost for the repair itself - and not the costs for someone who has to stop working and a disturbance of workflow in a department - then it is not me who needs advices about economy…..
But you admit at least that I have NOT an outdated computer without warranty as you stated, but a 2012 model, assembled in fall 2013 with still 6 months of warranty?
It is funny how people like you are stating things and ignore them after it is evident that you were wrong…
BTW: Even the 2011 models in our family are working well - like millions of other MBP worldwide. There would be much more of them if apple cared more about reliability of their products. It is not about max. performance, it is about QUALITY.
You see, this is why I have such a hard time arguing with you. You are just all over the place, arbitrarily switching points and putting words in your opponent mouths. My users get a replacement computer within 5-10 minutes of a reported technical failure, where they can login onto their server account and continue working. There is virtually no downtime.
Yes, I happily admit my intellectual inferiority in this absolutely crucial to this discussion fact.
- Alright, so let me break this down for you:
Without checking the figures, I'm just going to grant that the 7-9 % performance gain you mention is correct. There is a performance difference of 7-9 %. This is fact.
Your assessment that this difference is "NOTHING in REAL LIFE" is true for some users (such as yourself most likely, as you seem hell-bent on convincing other people of it), and not true for other users. Some may legitimately benefit from that increase when they are working 10 hours a day with demanding tasks. This is subjective measure and opinion.
There.
Is these 5-10 minutes the time to only unpack the spare MacBook Pro or also to set it up (including recovering the data from the previous one via TimeMachine)? Or are you using MBP as thin client?
Most of our users use mobile accounts which are synchronised with the server. So most of the time, there is little to no setup needed — you can just use the spare as a thin client (the common required software is pre-installed and people who have special needs have pre-prepared installation scripts that download and configure the packages they might need). Of course, there are some users who use Time Machine instead or some other backup solutions/combination thereof. Most of the time, however, we don't need to restore the entire backup, its usually enough to restore the things that people were working on in the moment of failure. This can be done very quickly most of the time.
Sorry, we might have a confusion here in regards to the terms 'thin client'. I probably shouldn't have used it in this context. The data is mirrored at the server. Computation is carried out by the client computer (disregarding the use of the supercomputing facilities to simplify the matter). So the needs depend on what the user has to do. Some are fine with MacBooks. Some need more beefier machines. The 'nothing to backup/restore' is part of the overall strategy — we strive to have the important data replicated in more reliable locations than the user's hard drive.
If it's set up correctly machines are imaged up front using OSX server and using apples opendav serve home directories sync on first login, 10 mins for a replacement laptop would include imaging time at my offices. Initial imaging for a single iMac or mobile can take ten or so hours but doesn't need to be completed often. IF you use license servers or have multiuser serials there's almost no setup. For the other software you can issue post flight scripts/
Every company running OSX clients should have rollout and other systems set up like this... Even if they have five clients - and one spare waiting in the closet..
FWIW _ i''m not going to get involved because I don't have the patience.. But I've been an it pro for 25 years and built a career on Mac specialty and creative asset management for Fortune 500 companies. - I see some information that I'd consider correct and some I wouldn't agree with going on here.
Also in a publicly traded company you lease machines anyway you don't buy - so you can minimize capital expenditure in single quarters that can range into the millions.. Also you can't sell on machines you buy and end up paying to dispose of them - so leasing is really the only way to go outside of small businesses. It may well be that businesses aren't buying new machines every three years, more than likely they're leasing them
The largest single cost in machine failure is data recovery - followed by lost productivity.. The machine portion is almost nonexistent in the overall equation... You spend more in IT staff supporting the replacement probably than the cost of the early end lease etc..
Anyway just some thoughts, not all directed at the quote - just in general
Do they access the data remotely or is it downloaded to their machine and just replicated back (aka backed up) continuously? In the latter case the time to download should be included in these 5-10 minutes.
[doublepost=1459030934][/doublepost]Guys, frankly what I wanted to point out is that either you use MacBooks (and even rMBPs) where a 300$ thin client would be sufficient (aka hundreds of similar low-key employees doing the same simple routine thing like call-centre or something like that) and in this case I can believe in 5-10 minutes replacement time because there is almost nothing to setup or recover locally or you use rMBPs accordingly for complex-high-resolution designers or modellers or developers on a big project etc and in this case 5-10 minutes is a lie, it's more like an hour or much more (or you design, model or develop etc remotely losing all the benefits of the last rMBPs i. e. doing it inefficiently from the POV of rMBP).
Last edited:
Put it this way.
I administer a fleet of 850 PCs.
We replace every 3-5 years.
You know how many memory or storage upgrades I've done on them since 2007?
ZERO.
Why?
Because we (and I do for personal machines) buy a spec that is appropriate for a 3-5 year life-time, then replace and maintain warranty cover.
Trying to keep some old machine with crappy battery life, crappy IO port speeds, etc. going beyond its use-by date is just not what professionals do.
Professionals also do not like to deal with hardware failure. So they maintain support, and when the machine fails they restore from backup if required or more likely re-connect a network share and let the hardware vendor replace the broken gear under warranty. There is far more productive stuff i can be doing than swapping out broken components or upgrading machines.
The market for hardware upgrades is small and getting smaller. A lot of mobile PC hardware is not hardware upgradable these days either (e.g., Surface, most of the other tablet hybrids, some of the ultrabook form factor machines) because the gains aren't there unless you really screwed up your initial build spec.
I administer a fleet of 850 PCs.
We replace every 3-5 years.
You know how many memory or storage upgrades I've done on them since 2007?
ZERO.
Why?
Because we (and I do for personal machines) buy a spec that is appropriate for a 3-5 year life-time, then replace and maintain warranty cover.
Trying to keep some old machine with crappy battery life, crappy IO port speeds, etc. going beyond its use-by date is just not what professionals do.
Professionals also do not like to deal with hardware failure. So they maintain support, and when the machine fails they restore from backup if required or more likely re-connect a network share and let the hardware vendor replace the broken gear under warranty. There is far more productive stuff i can be doing than swapping out broken components or upgrading machines.
The market for hardware upgrades is small and getting smaller. A lot of mobile PC hardware is not hardware upgradable these days either (e.g., Surface, most of the other tablet hybrids, some of the ultrabook form factor machines) because the gains aren't there unless you really screwed up your initial build spec.
Last edited:
3-5 years is a big period in computer industry. For example while in your case employees waited 3-5 years for HDD to be replaced with SSD in my company we just gradually upgraded all the PCs, laptops, Macs and MBPs with an SSD which costed much less than buying new computer (btw our policy is buy new computer every 2 years). With current (and future) Mac and rMBP models you don't have this choice anymore.
Again I'd point out that HDD vs SSD, 3-5 years won't matter for hundreds low-key employees doing routine simple things. But for them 300$ thin client would be enough, buying them a Mac or even rMBP is not a necessity.
P. S.
> MBP (early 2011) - Core i7-2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Is the Seagate original Mac part?
Again I'd point out that HDD vs SSD, 3-5 years won't matter for hundreds low-key employees doing routine simple things. But for them 300$ thin client would be enough, buying them a Mac or even rMBP is not a necessity.
P. S.
> MBP (early 2011) - Core i7-2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Is the Seagate original Mac part?
The way IT deals with its fleet of PCs is not necessarily representative of how consumers and professionals deal with them on an individual basis. For example, it's been already mentioned IT often leases PCs, consumers never do that. And according to Apple, 600 million people keep PCs longer than 5 years.
What people do and what they would be better off doing are two entirely different things.
Yeah, the same as what companies (whose one and only goal is profit by definition) do and what they be better doing to help their client first and then seek for profit. Two entirely different things.
Two entirely different things.Perhaps it's not enough that Apple priced its laptops well above those of its competitors.
Now with the Retina MacBook Pro, neither the SSD nor the RAM is serviceable.
Neither seems much defensible.
Since the SSD is removable, there is not many reasonable explanations for why the SSDs wouldn't be upgradable other than that Apple's desire to force users to get the biggest storage on initial purchases or else buy new computers rather than fitting their computers with bigger SSDs afterward.
Soldered RAM is often described as a compromise needed for thinner laptops, but as laptops from competitors (such as the Dell XPS 15 which has a 15 inch screen in a 14 inch laptop body) show, this is not the case. Again, the decision was made from Apple's desire to force users to get the most amount of memory on initial purchases or else buy new computers rather than fitting their computers with more memory afterward.
Now with the Retina MacBook Pro, neither the SSD nor the RAM is serviceable.
Neither seems much defensible.
Since the SSD is removable, there is not many reasonable explanations for why the SSDs wouldn't be upgradable other than that Apple's desire to force users to get the biggest storage on initial purchases or else buy new computers rather than fitting their computers with bigger SSDs afterward.
Soldered RAM is often described as a compromise needed for thinner laptops, but as laptops from competitors (such as the Dell XPS 15 which has a 15 inch screen in a 14 inch laptop body) show, this is not the case. Again, the decision was made from Apple's desire to force users to get the most amount of memory on initial purchases or else buy new computers rather than fitting their computers with more memory afterward.
Personally, I'm less troubled by this development in Apple's product line than the fact that they are shipping computers with lower and lower specs. I used to have a 2011 base model iMac. That system's CPU is faster than the CPU in the current base model iMac being shipped 5 years later...
Well the ssd can be upgraded that's a choice.
As for soldered memory taking the socket out of the equation actually reduces latency and increases reliability
Now let's talk about price. Find a premium laptop of the same quality and get back to me. The mythical apple premium isn't really there.
And the lack of a quad-core Mac mini.
Those are familiar and wearisome arguments. Nobody is compelled to buy Apple, you have a choice.
Topic price:
Apple is expensive? Yes for sure it is.
But take a look at competitors. Wow. They are as expensive as Apple.
Guess why? Apple is supposed to be a premium product. If u want a "premium product" u have to pay a little more.
Microsofts new products claims to be premium products too. So look @the price. Expensive too.
If u want a car like a Ferrari, dont suspect the competitors will be much cheaper.
Topic Hardware:
Well. Apple lacks behind in CPU (nearly) all the time. But take a closer look @ssd/RAM/Logicboard etc. They are pretty much state of the art.
I cant upgrade RAM? True. Sucks.
But 8GB should be enough anyways. Except ur a professional programmer/designer whatever.
Apple is expensive? Yes for sure it is.
But take a look at competitors. Wow. They are as expensive as Apple.
Guess why? Apple is supposed to be a premium product. If u want a "premium product" u have to pay a little more.
Microsofts new products claims to be premium products too. So look @the price. Expensive too.
If u want a car like a Ferrari, dont suspect the competitors will be much cheaper.
Topic Hardware:
Well. Apple lacks behind in CPU (nearly) all the time. But take a closer look @ssd/RAM/Logicboard etc. They are pretty much state of the art.
I cant upgrade RAM? True. Sucks.
But 8GB should be enough anyways. Except ur a professional programmer/designer whatever.