I have a 3Tb Time capsule purchased during that time period. Wonder if those used the same drive?
if youve worried about it, somebody at apple worried about it. they didnt recall your product, so i doubt theres anything worth worrying about until the day they release something saying you should be worried.
Presumably the reason the HDD is slap bang in the middle is because that's the fattest part of the machine (the late 2012 ones onwards are the super-thin ones) and the only place it will fit. Thinness above all other considerations again...
huh? is there a known problem w/ all iMacs due to harddrives failing due to thinness? no, none that im aware of. so what consideration are you talking about? you understand that your non-engineers worries dont mean anything, right?
Meaning the TC doesn't get as hot as the iMac or vice versa? Both get pretty hot, and the TC's fan doesn't turn on until things are really hot, around 50°C.
Presumably the reason the HDD is slap bang in the middle is because that's the fattest part of the machine (the late 2012 ones onwards are the super-thin ones) and the only place it will fit. Thinness above all other considerations again...
Yes thank you. If they use the same drives, and the iMac drives are failing, I'd say that is pretty relevant, and the TC ones should have a replacement program too.
Yes thank you. If they use the same drives, and the iMac drives are failing, I'd say that is pretty relevant, and the TC ones should have a replacement program too.
but nobody ever said they used the same drives! why are you making so much noise about something you havent even bothered to confirm?
but nobody ever said they used the same drives! why are you making so much noise about something you havent even bothered to confirm?
According to the iFixit teardowns, the iMac uses WD Black and the Time Capsule uses a Seagate Barracuda. Similar dives but I'd say the Time Capsule doesn't get as much of a workout as the iMac and probably not as hot either. We had a bunch of WD Blacks from that same time period that failed rather quickly. Prior to that we've had very good service from them. Not sure what changed. They don't specify a MTBF for that drive. WD does make a real enterprise grade drive called the RE which has 1,200,000 hour MTBF. That is what we use now in our servers.
huh? is there a known problem w/ all iMacs due to harddrives failing due to thinness? no, none that im aware of. so what consideration are you talking about? you understand that your non-engineers worries dont mean anything, right?
Just because you as a "non-engineer" doesn't understand the implications of heat, doesn't mean engineers don't either. My concern - as an engineer - is how much heat the drive has to endure. Heat is bad for hard drives, and mine frequently hits 55°C. In fact it's been over the "specified operational maximum" of 60C more often than I'd like. Apple has made compromises on the iMac (much like the new MB) for that thinness. It means heat sensitive components such as the HDD are right in the centre of the iMac, and surrounded by other hot components. If it wasn't so thin, they could be spaced apart with much more cooling. Is thinness really worth making compromises for on a desktop? I don't know too many people who buy their desktops based on how thin they are.
but nobody ever said they used the same drives! why are you making so much noise about something you havent even bothered to confirm?
They're from the same era, the same size, by the same manufacturer and have had problems in the past. The link is fairly likely. Confirming the link however isn't easy until someone posts what drives exactly are being recalled (my bet is Seagate) and someone takes apart a 3TB TC. The 2TB TC one uses a Seagate drive, and since Apple seems to only use WD and Seagate at the moment, there's a 50-50 chance.
if youve worried about it, somebody at apple worried about it. they didnt recall your product, so i doubt theres anything worth worrying about until the day they release something saying you should be worried.
So before Apple recalled the Macbooks that had GPU issues there was nothing to worry about? Despite the thousands of reports that they had issues?
According to the iFixit teardowns, the iMac uses WD Black and the Time Capsule uses a Seagate Barracuda. Similar dives but I'd say the Time Capsule doesn't get as much of a workout as the iMac and probably not as hot either.
The repeated spin-ups aren't too great for hard drives, as it involves the relatively risky load/unload of heads. And on initial backup, the TC gets really hot. But yeah overall, it definitely gets used less.
They also use higher priced components. Apple charges $300 to move to 512GB from 256GB SSD and they use boards with the same components as the following:
$458 for 512GB. $227 for 256GB. The upgrade by deducting the 256GB and adding 512GB going by the retail price would be $231 so Apple's $300 isn't too bad.
Apple should charge far less. Certainly, less than Amazon, because you are not buying just one SSD stick as with Amazon, but a full computer. Now, add to that the extra RAM price and the extra whatever else (including cables, adapters, etc), and you end up paying twice or more for the computer. In other words, Apple could slash the prices of all their devices to half and still make huge profits, significantly expanding global market share. But they do not get it.
Further, check this out (competition is good):
SanDisk Expands Into the External Storage Market with World’s Highest- Performing Portable SSD
New family of offerings feature world’s fastest line-up of Type C-based portable SSDs
COMPUTEX 2015 — TAIPEI, Taiwan – June 1, 2015 – SanDisk Corporation (NASDAQ: SNDK), a global leader in flash storage solutions, today entered the portable SSD market with a family of high-performance drives, including the SanDisk Extreme 900 Portable SSDs, the world’s fastest line of Type C-based portable SSDs; and the SanDisk Extreme 500 Portable SSDs, the company’s new pocket-sized, rugged drives.
These new drives come with both USB Type-C and Type-A cables to provide the ultimate flexibility when working between systems.
SSD lines feature a three-year warranty.
The SanDisk Extreme 500 Portable SSDs will be available worldwide in capacities of 120GB, 240GB and 480GB, at MSRPs of $99.99, $149.99 and $239.99 respectively. The SanDisk Extreme 900 SSDs will be available worldwide in capacities of 480GB, 960GB and 1.92TB at MSRPs of $399.99, $599.99 and $999.99, respectively.
Apple could slash the prices of all their devices to half and still make huge profits, significantly expanding global market share. But they do not get it.
They have under 35% gross margins on Macs so they can't cut the prices in half. Over their whole product range, they have net margins of around 25%. They have higher margins on the more expensive models but at most they can take off about 10-15% and this wouldn't expand marketshare enough to offset the loss in profit. PC competitors are working with single digit net margin, some as low as 2%. The only way they survive is on unit volume and cheap parts. If unit volume falls significantly, these companies will leave the business.
You can buy these and just plug them in for extra storage. SSDs aren't like HDDs where they have wake-up times and hang the OS and are noisy. In a desktop environment, you can plug one or more in and just leave it attached.
960GB for $600 isn't that far off Apple's 1TB for $800 in the MBP but a bit cheaper than $1000 in the iMac and Apple's drives run up to 2GB/s now, you won't get 850MB/s over standard 5Gbit USB 3. It can also be lower quality NAND. You can get a 1TB EVO drive for $378 with cheap TLC NAND and put it in a $13 enclosure, this gives you 1TB for less than half what Apple charges but it's not the same quality:
The Sandisk drives were also just announced. Apple doesn't manufacture NAND so they have to wait until companies produce it before they can lower their prices.
Apple uses Toshiba and Samsung for memory and probably some others. There's a push towards 3D NAND coming up so after that happens, Apple will be able to drop SSD prices.
They're from the same era, the same size, by the same manufacturer and have had problems in the past. The link is fairly likely. Confirming the link however isn't easy until someone posts what drives exactly are being recalled (my bet is Seagate) and someone takes apart a 3TB TC. The 2TB TC one uses a Seagate drive, and since Apple seems to only use WD and Seagate at the moment, there's a 50-50 chance.
so in short you're saying you have no idea. no idea if they're the same components or even brand. meanwhile, Apple, after conducting its own research, issued a recall for one product but not another. so here's the thing -- Apple is smarter than you, because they have the knowledge you're ignorant about (which drives are in the units). so for you to pretend you have cause for concern, because...well, there is no because...is just plain FUD nonsense. find something new to be concerned about, mr engineer.
Why don't you just build your own PC and crow about how much better it is?
The only reason people troll here about "but but but competition is good" on this site is because they want to get on their soapbox and to tell Apple that it should be copying the competition. In this case, you are pushing the idea that Apple should join "the competition" in playing the low margin game.
That's because you just compared Apple's unit pricing on desktop computers to a high volume, low margin memory drive business without understanding the difference. You say is "Apple is ripping me off" by not selling their computers at BOM, but another way to look at it is that when a component is part of a whole, it can change the total benefit-to-cost ratio disproportionately. A multiplier on the total benefit you get from the whole. The only reason you see through this because of the BYOPC movement has exposed you to high-volume, low-margin component pricing. You're accustomed to thinking that way.
What makes your argument specious is that you don't post lengthy diatribes about this practice in all the products you buy. That energy drink or Mtn Dew, or vitamin water you buy? What's the BOM on goddamned sugar water? Yet you've plunk down $2.00 or more for a single refreshing can (or spent as much or more on a fountain drink at a restaurant), which you could probably make at home using the raw materials and a water carbonator for $0.05 per serving. BYO Mtn Dew. Yet where's your demand to see their BOM? Your lengthy post about "but but but competition is good"? Oh, I forgot, it's only wrong when Apple does it.
Why don't you just build your own PC and crow about how much better it is?
.../...
The simple reason that you are wrong is the immense Apple fortune. As said, Apple could reduce pricing of all stuff to half and still make huge amounts of money boosting market share.
so in short you're saying you have no idea. no idea if they're the same components or even brand.
Err, I said the exact opposite; the likelihood is they are one of two brands as there were only two manufacturers (Seagate and WD) making 3TB drives at the time.
meanwhile, Apple, after conducting its own research, issued a recall for one product but not another. so here's the thing -- Apple is smarter than you, because they have the knowledge you're ignorant about (which drives are in the units). so for you to pretend you have cause for concern, because...well, there is no because...is just plain FUD nonsense. find something new to be concerned about, mr engineer.
Perhaps you should find something new to waste your time arguing about, as I've stated the facts and probabilities but you are apparently ignoring them. There's little doubt Apple's smarter than you too, as they've got you right in their palm and have convinced you that everything is fine and dandy. Fingers in ears comes to mind. No doubt if this recall hadn't been issued yet (much like before the MacBook GPU recall) you'd be trumpeting how everything's fine, since Apple's not issued a recall. Just because they've not recalled something doesn't mean there's no potential for a problem. But since you seem so sure the drives aren't the same, where's your proof?
ATENTION, mine HD just failed last week. Unfortunately had no backup. Apple pays for replacement under APLLE CARE but the cost if sending the HD to sea gate to recover the data is mine.
So, make backup urgently if you have an IMac between these dates. Then send for repair
So, make backup urgently if you have an IMac between these dates. Then send for repair
Other drives also fail, so backups shouldn't be limited to problematic hardware. I understand if the data is trivial, but if you have anything important, you should actually have at least 2 backups.
Comments
if youve worried about it, somebody at apple worried about it. they didnt recall your product, so i doubt theres anything worth worrying about until the day they release something saying you should be worried.
dont ever buy furniture. its called "keystone pricing" -- buy for X, sell for 2 * X.
huh? is there a known problem w/ all iMacs due to harddrives failing due to thinness? no, none that im aware of. so what consideration are you talking about? you understand that your non-engineers worries dont mean anything, right?
but nobody ever said they used the same drives! why are you making so much noise about something you havent even bothered to confirm?
but nobody ever said they used the same drives! why are you making so much noise about something you havent even bothered to confirm?
Because only one company makes 3TB drives, and they only have one model, clearly. You should be cowering in awe at the wisdom on display.
but nobody ever said they used the same drives! why are you making so much noise about something you havent even bothered to confirm?
According to the iFixit teardowns, the iMac uses WD Black and the Time Capsule uses a Seagate Barracuda. Similar dives but I'd say the Time Capsule doesn't get as much of a workout as the iMac and probably not as hot either. We had a bunch of WD Blacks from that same time period that failed rather quickly. Prior to that we've had very good service from them. Not sure what changed. They don't specify a MTBF for that drive. WD does make a real enterprise grade drive called the RE which has 1,200,000 hour MTBF. That is what we use now in our servers.
Just because you as a "non-engineer" doesn't understand the implications of heat, doesn't mean engineers don't either. My concern - as an engineer - is how much heat the drive has to endure. Heat is bad for hard drives, and mine frequently hits 55°C. In fact it's been over the "specified operational maximum" of 60C more often than I'd like. Apple has made compromises on the iMac (much like the new MB) for that thinness. It means heat sensitive components such as the HDD are right in the centre of the iMac, and surrounded by other hot components. If it wasn't so thin, they could be spaced apart with much more cooling. Is thinness really worth making compromises for on a desktop? I don't know too many people who buy their desktops based on how thin they are.
They're from the same era, the same size, by the same manufacturer and have had problems in the past. The link is fairly likely. Confirming the link however isn't easy until someone posts what drives exactly are being recalled (my bet is Seagate) and someone takes apart a 3TB TC. The 2TB TC one uses a Seagate drive, and since Apple seems to only use WD and Seagate at the moment, there's a 50-50 chance.
Cheaper to buy them all from one manufacturer due to economies of scale.
So before Apple recalled the Macbooks that had GPU issues there was nothing to worry about? Despite the thousands of reports that they had issues?
The repeated spin-ups aren't too great for hard drives, as it involves the relatively risky load/unload of heads. And on initial backup, the TC gets really hot. But yeah overall, it definitely gets used less.
What a coincidence! I had to have my 3TB HD replaced a month ago after it failed suddenly.
They also use higher priced components. Apple charges $300 to move to 512GB from 256GB SSD and they use boards with the same components as the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SM951-256GB-AHCI-MZHPV256HDGL-00000/dp/B00VELD92U
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SM951-512GB-AHCI-MZHPV512HDGL-00000/dp/B00VELDBJ6
$458 for 512GB. $227 for 256GB. The upgrade by deducting the 256GB and adding 512GB going by the retail price would be $231 so Apple's $300 isn't too bad.
Apple should charge far less. Certainly, less than Amazon, because you are not buying just one SSD stick as with Amazon, but a full computer. Now, add to that the extra RAM price and the extra whatever else (including cables, adapters, etc), and you end up paying twice or more for the computer. In other words, Apple could slash the prices of all their devices to half and still make huge profits, significantly expanding global market share. But they do not get it.
Further, check this out (competition is good):
SanDisk Expands Into the External Storage Market with World’s Highest- Performing Portable SSD
New family of offerings feature world’s fastest line-up of Type C-based portable SSDs
COMPUTEX 2015 — TAIPEI, Taiwan – June 1, 2015 – SanDisk Corporation (NASDAQ: SNDK), a global leader in flash storage solutions, today entered the portable SSD market with a family of high-performance drives, including the SanDisk Extreme 900 Portable SSDs, the world’s fastest line of Type C-based portable SSDs; and the SanDisk Extreme 500 Portable SSDs, the company’s new pocket-sized, rugged drives.
These new drives come with both USB Type-C and Type-A cables to provide the ultimate flexibility when working between systems.
SSD lines feature a three-year warranty.
The SanDisk Extreme 500 Portable SSDs will be available worldwide in capacities of 120GB, 240GB and 480GB, at MSRPs of $99.99, $149.99 and $239.99 respectively. The SanDisk Extreme 900 SSDs will be available worldwide in capacities of 480GB, 960GB and 1.92TB at MSRPs of $399.99, $599.99 and $999.99, respectively.
http://www.sandisk.com/about-sandisk/press-room/press-releases/2015/sandisk-expands-into-the-external-storage-market-with-world’s-highest-performing-portable-ssd
Details:
SanDisk Extreme 500 portable SSD
120GB and 240GB
Seq. Read: 415 MB/s
Seq. Write: 340 MB/s
http://www.sandisk.com/products/ssd/sata/extreme-500-portable-ssd
SanDisk Extreme 900 portable SSD
480GB, 960GB and 1.92TB
Seq. Read: 850 MB/s
Seq. Write: 850 MB/s
USB 3.1
http://www.sandisk.com/products/ssd/sata/extreme-900-portable-ssd
They have under 35% gross margins on Macs so they can't cut the prices in half. Over their whole product range, they have net margins of around 25%. They have higher margins on the more expensive models but at most they can take off about 10-15% and this wouldn't expand marketshare enough to offset the loss in profit. PC competitors are working with single digit net margin, some as low as 2%. The only way they survive is on unit volume and cheap parts. If unit volume falls significantly, these companies will leave the business.
You can buy these and just plug them in for extra storage. SSDs aren't like HDDs where they have wake-up times and hang the OS and are noisy. In a desktop environment, you can plug one or more in and just leave it attached.
960GB for $600 isn't that far off Apple's 1TB for $800 in the MBP but a bit cheaper than $1000 in the iMac and Apple's drives run up to 2GB/s now, you won't get 850MB/s over standard 5Gbit USB 3. It can also be lower quality NAND. You can get a 1TB EVO drive for $378 with cheap TLC NAND and put it in a $13 enclosure, this gives you 1TB for less than half what Apple charges but it's not the same quality:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-75E1T0B-AM/dp/B00OBRFFAS
http://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Tool-free-Enclosure-Optimized-EC-UASP/dp/B00OJ3UJ2S
The Sandisk drives were also just announced. Apple doesn't manufacture NAND so they have to wait until companies produce it before they can lower their prices.
Apple uses Toshiba and Samsung for memory and probably some others. There's a push towards 3D NAND coming up so after that happens, Apple will be able to drop SSD prices.
so in short you're saying you have no idea. no idea if they're the same components or even brand. meanwhile, Apple, after conducting its own research, issued a recall for one product but not another. so here's the thing -- Apple is smarter than you, because they have the knowledge you're ignorant about (which drives are in the units). so for you to pretend you have cause for concern, because...well, there is no because...is just plain FUD nonsense. find something new to be concerned about, mr engineer.
Why don't you just build your own PC and crow about how much better it is?
The only reason people troll here about "but but but competition is good" on this site is because they want to get on their soapbox and to tell Apple that it should be copying the competition. In this case, you are pushing the idea that Apple should join "the competition" in playing the low margin game.
That's because you just compared Apple's unit pricing on desktop computers to a high volume, low margin memory drive business without understanding the difference. You say is "Apple is ripping me off" by not selling their computers at BOM, but another way to look at it is that when a component is part of a whole, it can change the total benefit-to-cost ratio disproportionately. A multiplier on the total benefit you get from the whole. The only reason you see through this because of the BYOPC movement has exposed you to high-volume, low-margin component pricing. You're accustomed to thinking that way.
What makes your argument specious is that you don't post lengthy diatribes about this practice in all the products you buy. That energy drink or Mtn Dew, or vitamin water you buy? What's the BOM on goddamned sugar water? Yet you've plunk down $2.00 or more for a single refreshing can (or spent as much or more on a fountain drink at a restaurant), which you could probably make at home using the raw materials and a water carbonator for $0.05 per serving. BYO Mtn Dew. Yet where's your demand to see their BOM? Your lengthy post about "but but but competition is good"? Oh, I forgot, it's only wrong when Apple does it.
Why don't you just build your own PC and crow about how much better it is?
.../...
The simple reason that you are wrong is the immense Apple fortune. As said, Apple could reduce pricing of all stuff to half and still make huge amounts of money boosting market share.
Err, I said the exact opposite; the likelihood is they are one of two brands as there were only two manufacturers (Seagate and WD) making 3TB drives at the time.
Perhaps you should find something new to waste your time arguing about, as I've stated the facts and probabilities but you are apparently ignoring them. There's little doubt Apple's smarter than you too, as they've got you right in their palm and have convinced you that everything is fine and dandy. Fingers in ears comes to mind. No doubt if this recall hadn't been issued yet (much like before the MacBook GPU recall) you'd be trumpeting how everything's fine, since Apple's not issued a recall. Just because they've not recalled something doesn't mean there's no potential for a problem. But since you seem so sure the drives aren't the same, where's your proof?
The failures are probably related to the Thailand flooding: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/
Does anyone have the link on apple to check their serial number? Thanks!
So, make backup urgently if you have an IMac between these dates. Then send for repair
So, make backup urgently if you have an IMac between these dates. Then send for repair
Other drives also fail, so backups shouldn't be limited to problematic hardware. I understand if the data is trivial, but if you have anything important, you should actually have at least 2 backups.