netrox

YP101 said:

Apple should reconsider SSD should be replaceable. What a waste of money and landfilled.
Over $1000 laptop or desktop died due to just SSD failure. Is this really green as Apple always claimed all their product made by recycle material but in the end they create more unnecessary.

If SSD fails which is rare, Apple will replace it under AppleCare. The faulty motherboard does not go to landfill but gets recycled by Apple. If you want a faster Mac, Apple offers trade in credit. It is literally more environmentally friendly that way.  
 
The primary SSD drive is meant for OS, apps, and temporary storage. For long term storage, use external disks. Modern Macs has USB4 ports so the speed can go up to 5GBps (40Gbps) which is almost as fast as internal SSDs (and I don't think we even have external disks reaching that speed yet but it will). 

Also, an important advice: bigger RAM means less writes/reads of SSD so a bigger RAM becomes more important than SSD size if you're a heavy user.  

In short, for power users like photographers and creators should not spend money on biggest SSD (1TB is minimum, 2TB is max, more than that is a waste of money) but do spend on bigger RAM because bigger RAM means less writes/reads on SSD for swap. That will make Mac last much longer. Use external disks for long term storage.

That's literally how mine is set up and never once did I think, "Damn, it needs to get faster!" Do I need more storage? No problem, I get more external disks. And it's blazing fast. Also, faster SSD will NOT make many parts of workflow faster because a lot of data have to be processed first inside CPU before they can be used. If it takes a while to load a massive RAW file (like mine with 60MP RAW files), faster SSDs will not improve performance at all since it's CPU-bound. More time is spent in CPU processing data to be used, not in transferring the RAW file.
 
Faster CPUs often mean faster processing so having a M2 Studio will definitely process data faster and guess what? You have to get a new Mac. Are you going to complain that CPU should be upgradable? We had that and it never worked well - there were too many bottlenecks that it's no longer cost effective. 

if anyone sees nude pics of me, I'll just say it's deepfakes because I failed to pay back what I owe to lenders. That's all. 

seanj said:

It initially looks good… until you see it’s saddled with all these legacy USB-A ports 

If they’d been USB-C then maybe, there’s there’s only one of these!!!!!

From what I recall,  USB-C 3.2 doesn't support a USB-C hub for multiple usb-c ports. TB/USB4 supports it. That's why we're starting to see hubs with several USB-C ports - they require USB4 chipset to be able to support the hub for USB-C ports. 

You don't need them if you have Apple Watch. 

I don't think people really get it - Apple's Vision Pro has 5000 patents and that includes UX and that effectively prevents competitors from copying the whole implementation of operating system and the hardware configurations. Just watch competitors try to get away with copying Apple's Vision Pro. 

There is literally no "true" operating system that is tightly integrated like Apple Vision Pro. We've seen competition AR glasses and they sucked. Their UX is terrible and awkward. The UI in Apple Vision Pro is extremely intuitive and natural.