If their prices for MLC end up better than Samsung, they might switch to Toshiba in other models. I could see them soldering SSD chips on other models if prices improve a lot with 3D NAND (e.g base with 512GB, BTO 1TB for $300, 2TB for $800) but I don't like the idea of soldered storage. If motherboards die, with a removable board you can at least recover your data. This way, any RAM failure, board failure, PSU failure and your data is completely inaccessible until the problem is fixed.
On the other hand, an NVMExpress drive could later be installed in the rMBP 13".
As soon as Apple have time to tune its firmware, and Hardware, I guess same time next year we will have Apple's SSD in all of Mac Range, including iMac. Hopefully the Skylake update will also give enough PCI-E 3.0 lane to its SSD controller, therefore doubling the speed to 3.2GB/s.
Along with hopefully some updated 802.11ac controller ( 2x2 160MHz 3.2Gbps ), and wifi antenna tuning, ( currently using some innovative way to lay around the speakers ).
The next update of Macbook will be very interesting.
I don't like the idea of soldered storage. If motherboards die, with a removable board you can at least recover your data. This way, any RAM failure, board failure, PSU failure and your data is completely inaccessible until the problem is fixed.
1. Selling controller chips makes hardly any profit. So Apple won't do so. Keeping controller chips for itself so Apple can add value to its high priced and high profit products makes far more sense. Apple is willing to pay the high price for its own components.
2. Selling controller chips means disclosing secrets like the chips' capabilities and specs. Apple would rather keep this a secret so its products can't easily be copied.
Sandisk was collecting about $350+M annually in licensing fees alone from Samsung -- Samsung actually tried to buy Sandisk back in 2008. Anobit was also founded by some of the key members of Sandisk and Samsung was their largest customer -- and the young start-up had only a few at the time -- before Apple eventually bought it. To say the business doesn't make any profit is a bit silly. Not sure if Samsung continued to invest heavily in their tech after the acquisition, or some other manufacturers decided to license their tech, but there is a good reason why Apple paid $400M-$500M for it.
Comments
The 13" rMBP uses a PCIe Samsung board, which isn't NVMe:
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+13-Inch+Retina+Display+Early+2015+Teardown/38300
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8979/samsung-sm951-512-gb-review
They've actually soldered the SSD onto the motherboard on the 12" Macbook so storage capacity can't be increased later on:
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Retina+Macbook+2015+Teardown/39841
They've used Toshiba MLC too. Toshiba is moving to 3D NAND:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9113/toshiba-announces-48layer-128gbit-3d-nand
If their prices for MLC end up better than Samsung, they might switch to Toshiba in other models. I could see them soldering SSD chips on other models if prices improve a lot with 3D NAND (e.g base with 512GB, BTO 1TB for $300, 2TB for $800) but I don't like the idea of soldered storage. If motherboards die, with a removable board you can at least recover your data. This way, any RAM failure, board failure, PSU failure and your data is completely inaccessible until the problem is fixed.
On the other hand, an NVMExpress drive could later be installed in the rMBP 13".
As soon as Apple have time to tune its firmware, and Hardware, I guess same time next year we will have Apple's SSD in all of Mac Range, including iMac. Hopefully the Skylake update will also give enough PCI-E 3.0 lane to its SSD controller, therefore doubling the speed to 3.2GB/s.
Along with hopefully some updated 802.11ac controller ( 2x2 160MHz 3.2Gbps ), and wifi antenna tuning, ( currently using some innovative way to lay around the speakers ).
The next update of Macbook will be very interesting.
I don't like the idea of soldered storage. If motherboards die, with a removable board you can at least recover your data. This way, any RAM failure, board failure, PSU failure and your data is completely inaccessible until the problem is fixed.
That's what backups are for
1. Selling controller chips makes hardly any profit. So Apple won't do so. Keeping controller chips for itself so Apple can add value to its high priced and high profit products makes far more sense. Apple is willing to pay the high price for its own components.
2. Selling controller chips means disclosing secrets like the chips' capabilities and specs. Apple would rather keep this a secret so its products can't easily be copied.
Sandisk was collecting about $350+M annually in licensing fees alone from Samsung -- Samsung actually tried to buy Sandisk back in 2008. Anobit was also founded by some of the key members of Sandisk and Samsung was their largest customer -- and the young start-up had only a few at the time -- before Apple eventually bought it. To say the business doesn't make any profit is a bit silly. Not sure if Samsung continued to invest heavily in their tech after the acquisition, or some other manufacturers decided to license their tech, but there is a good reason why Apple paid $400M-$500M for it.