Would you pay 25-30% more for an upgradeable MBA, MBP, or MB?

[ActionableMango]

I think MBA/MBP/MB’s should already be expandable, at the same or lower prince!

Hmmm, that depends on which prince we are talking about.

 

[Tozovac]

Why are we bombarding this thread with lwhat ifs”?
There are other people in need of wifi, airdrop and icloud help that needs more attentin than this.
Could that just be taboo here on macrumors?

On the other hand....the attention could be that it's a subject that some of us are rather intrigued by but is either taboo at Apple product planning meetings or just not as satisfying for Jony's team as working on how to remove another fraction of a mm from next year's (insert name here) Apple device!

 

[ActionableMango]

So I'm curious to see if there are at least 1999 other macrumors members who, like me, would be willing to pay a 25-30% premium for their MBA, MBP or MB if they later easily upgrade RAM, SSD, battery, etc.

I'm a very heavy upgrade-oriented person. Not just memory and SSD, but the more rare/more difficult upgrades like swapping out Wi-Fi cards, modifying PC graphics cards into Mac graphics cards, bluetooth module upgrades, software enablers to work around artificial blocks, etc. This has included MBP, Mac Mini, and Mac Pro. Heck, my signature is all about upgrades.

I'm saying this not because I want to talk about myself, but so that you understand that I'm biased toward upgrades.

Here's my analysis of your three options:

1. So we're looking at 25-30% more initial cost, plus the cost of upgrade components at the time of upgrade. It's difficult to pin that latter cost, but let's say another 25-30%. I think this is reasonable considering the highest density RAM usually stays fairly expensive, and if you're upgrading the SSD, you're probably not upgrading to a small one, you're upgrading to a big one. So for upgrades we're looking at an additional 50-60% over the initial cost. At this point it seems way better to just pay that up front and have the "upgrades" there all along. Although there is some merit to spreading out the cost by paying at two (or more) different times in the product's lifecycle, I'm not really seeing compelling savings and you don't get the benefits of the upgrades until you pay for them.
   
   I'm sort of ignoring your mention of the battery because that is already something that you can pay to have replaced when it is dead. The last I checked, this is still offered for every single Mac laptop.
   
   
2. So although I don't care for option 1, I also don't really like the wording in option 2. I'm never really "perfectly happy" paying what I did for non-upgradeable computer, because Apple stuff is expensive and I like upgrades. Just because I don't think the extra cost in option 1 is compelling, doesn't mean I'm automatically happy.
   
   
3. Well of course I like this option. Pay exactly what I do now, but also have the additional feature of upgrading? Or even better, pay less? Even if one didn't care for upgrades, one should like the lower price just to have a lower price. From a consumer perspective, literally everyone should pick this option. But it literally feels like a cheat option. It's like a campaign promise to increase services and lower taxes, all without adding to debt.
   
   So at the very least you should mention the negatives. For example the current "battery" isn't a battery pack--it's a collection of several custom-shaped batteries linked together, designed to fill in the voids of the case. For that to be replaceable is going to be a big design change. A user-replaceable battery, plus the slots and sockets, plus the hatches to access them easily, are all going to increase the size, the weight, and the number of parts.
   
   MacBooks wwould no longer be the lightweight, sleek, super rigid devices they are now. To people who upgrade, that's (perhaps) an acceptable tradeoff. To people who don't upgrade, it's not a tradeoff at all--it's just design compromise for no benefit.

 

[kohlson]

heat was a concern

I can't speak for others. In 2014 I put one in a 2011, and one in a 2012. Both systems are going strong today. My wife uses hers for programming. Weekly she downloads 100GB to run local tests.
Thing is, her employer got her a new 2015 model late last year, with 512GB. Last week, it wouldn't power up. So she's back to her old one.

 

[roland.g]

No. Not because they are already expensive. Not to mention that 25-30% might pay for a maxed out option depending on what machine you start with.

However, soldered RAM, proprietary connected SSDs, etc. are driven by a closed ultra thin book. There are many design reasons that the product we get is not particularly serviceable or upgradable.

The SSDs likely wouldn't be able to work at those speeds if they were as upgradable. I'm not trading performance or design for the ability to swap components.

 

[AlxM]

I'm curious as to your thinking on this.
From a cost perspective, there are certainly way fewer parts involved in assembling a logic board that has no upgradeable components. Fewer parts (cable, RAM and SSD sockets, screw to hold in drive). Less mechanical assembly. In theory, reliability should improve as the connection is "better." Looking at the ifixit teardown of a 13-MBP, the logic board is an engineering and manufacturing marvel, at least in my eyes. But totally non-upgradeable.

You might be right about the logic board assembly. To be honest, I didn't give that much thought. I was thinking more about the engineering costs of the external chassis, and the costs of design.

I'd love to see some actual data regarding the reliability and cost of repairs. I could see how, in theory, a logic board with soldered memory, CPU, SSD, etc could make the supply chain and assembly more streamlined. But the reason I bring up reliability and repairs is because if there is a bad memory chip, or a faulty SSD, or even a defective CPU, you've got to toss out the whole thing without the possibility of salvaging the good components. Tossing a perfectly good Core i9 or 4 TB SSD (a $3,200 upgrade from the base SSD in one of the MBPs) is a huge loss. And that raises another interesting angle: who's it cheaper for? If my machine falls just out of warranty, and my 4 TB SSD dies, I can't just swap it out for another. There goes my $6k+ MBP.

Now, it's likely the $1T company is smarter than I am, and whatever repair costs they absorb are peanuts compared to streamlining the assembly line, but I'd still love to know the numbers. It's not necessarily cheaper for me, that's for sure.

Edit for two questions:
1. Does apple solder SSDs or are they just not easily user upgradable?
2. Is it really cheaper to solder all those components to the logic board, or is it for the sake of thinness and squeezing more money out of upgrades? I haven't found a definitive source.

 

[Tozovac]

This is a fantastic discussion that's tempering my wants with reality. Being an engineer I'm very aware of tradeoffs in design, but not being a computer engineer, I'm not fully aware of the specific tradeoffs Apple faces when producing the computers they do. That's not to say I'll warm up anytime soon to the things that truly aggravate me -- my dissatisfaction with Apple offerings after the elimination of the iPod option with click wheel, the introduction of awful iOS7 (more, the utter white-washing away of intuitive design cues), and the over-simplifiation-look of OSX, and the accelerated fascination with thinness and slipperiness (around 2013) will not go away anytime soon. But the more educated I am that Apple is painting itself hardware/package wise into a corner, the easier it will be to let go of my once-satisfaction with (paying up for and) choosing Apple products. Thanks for all the great ongoing posts. Interestingly, it's currently a majority of voters who'd prefer at least some upgradeability, but admitting that I threw in option #3 later only after I realized another could be added.

 

[kohlson]

Does apple solder SSDs

1. At least according to ifixit, for the new ones they are soldered.
2. I worked for IT companies for a long time, back to when products were made in the same building. While circuit board production techniques have evolved, soldering an additional component of the board is only the tiniest increment more. But to your point, it meets both cost, design (thin), and new product sales targets.

Apple sold 16+ million-is Macs in the last 12 months. I believe only a small fraction of the buyers care about upgrades. I say this based on my anecdotal observation of the original high-tech supermarket: Frys Electronics. They got started near where I worked in Sunnyvale, and I live near another one now. For decades, each of the 35+ cash registers was jammed with people buying all manner of tech, a good portion of it upgrade items. For the past few years, it's a ghost town. And the component department has shrunk to a small corner at the edge of the store. I should point out that their sale items are cheaper than Amazon, and they will match Internet pricing. It's just that far fewer people seem to be buying that stuff any more.

 

[MBAir2010]

since i was never a number guys, ex; i need to say zero zero zero instead of thousands.
i can't get years right and can't add even wifi was reading the yellow pages. (<you'll laugh later today)
what is 25% more?
the initial price? or bare price of a new macbook?
well then
I am not paying extra for empty slots.
how do i know the macbook works in the store?
and if i can't get my wifi, airdrop and iCloud to sync with my 25% more cost that has 25% less of organs new macbook, why would i buy one?
which i won't, i vowed never to purchase a new apple product ever again.

great thread tho, but the one with snow leopard is more respectful and just relaxingly nice!

 

[ofarlig]

If there aren't any tradeoffs at all (meaning everything else exactly the same) I could be okay with it being expandable for the same money. If it becomes 1 mm thicker I rather have it like it is today. A laptop is replaced in 1-2 years for me so there is usually little need to expand it ever.