Apple is using a custom connector for the SSD in the new Mac Pro

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 98
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,278member
    brianm said:
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    That's one thing I'm concerned about the T2 because they bottleneck the SSD performance since both flash modules and controller keeps improving over time.  Judging on the iMac Pro, I'm sure those "SSDs" are just raw flash modules, whereas the T2 chip ties the controller within.  That limited any future performance improvement, but every computer with an M.2 running PCIe 3.0 have the potential to upgrade a faster SSD.

    Maybe that's not a problem for a Mac Pro, but not the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros.
    I'm not certain that they'll get that much faster. While the theoretical max speed of the PCI-E 3.0 x4 connector with a M.2 slot is 3600 megabytes per second or so, the reality is a bit less, perhaps 2900 megabytes per second.
    I don't think that's the case.  x4 should run at 3.9GB/s maximum and M.2 is just another form of it.  Source?

     https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Overview-of-M-2-SSDs-586/
    Their numbers aren't including overhead for the PCI-E connection itself. Best case, that overhead is 10%, thus the 3600 megabytes per second.
    It's actually around 1.54% for PCIe 3.0, so 985MB/s.  You got 3.9GB/s when it times four.

    https://www.tested.com/tech/457440-theoretical-vs-actual-bandwidth-pci-express-and-thunderbolt/
    https://www.overclock.net/forum/355-ssd/1489684-ssd-interface-comparison-pci-express-vs-sata.html

    But whether it's 3.6 or 3.9, it left both the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros lots of room for improvement.
    Huh, TIL.

    Still, there is NVMe storage overhead too. I just don't think there's as much leeway for growth as you do, is all.
    I've talked to a friend about this and he thinks the T2 is better optimized for APFS.  That might be true, but I'm not sure some software improvements will overcome hardware advancements.

    Then again, I know nothing about SSD controllers.  All of them could have different architectures.
    There are over a half dozen major SSD  controller architectures out there. New ones come around every year or two.
    Right, which is why I think locking your SSD in the T2 isn’t a good idea.
    1. No upgrade options, once obsolete, forever obsolete.
    2. (Some) nearly impossible to remove, you’ll need to perform SMD soldering.
    Change security settings after setting up the initial admin account so you can boot from "external drives" - which may allow booting from PCIe cards as well if the OS itself has built-in drives for that - worst case from an external Thunderbolt drive that could be using whatever the latest technology is.

    If it's not the T2, it's another controller of some sort that handles the storage and whatever connector the motherboard comes with like M.2 that has limits as well.
    in the case of the T2 though, it looks like whatever apple does is just a PCIe connection to the flash chips (in the MacMini or MacBook Pro's it's soldered instead) - the T2 handles all the stuff the "on-board" SSD chip functions would do plus a more integrated encryption solution.
    The SSD controller is certainly integrated into T2, obviously.  I think instead having it’s own CPU cores like others, it might use those A10 cores, which might be an advantage, but the drive speed doesn’t seems any faster.  I don’t worry about the Mac Pro mainly because it only serves as system drives and you can always plug one in slots, but it will be awkward for the rest of the lineups.
  • Reply 42 of 98
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member
    Disappointing on the part of Apple. My enthusiasm for this machine has just dropped a cog.
    maltz
  • Reply 43 of 98
    elijahg said:
    rezwits said:
    The way Catalina installs with the OS on one Drive and the User + Apps on a different "Drive", I think 256GB should be enough, although people are going to HAVE to setup external storage (or the internal carriage), with whatever drives they want/can...  but I am looking for the command line / tools that help with this... LOL
    That's interesting, I wonder if they're doing that so they can use APFS snapshots to revert the OS if there's a problem. Is this documented online or did you discover it through the developer beta?
    This was touched on in their "platform" keynote (the session after the big one). It's confirmed. But I don't have details. It's exciting though, and long overdue in principle, though they haven't had the technology (APFS with flexible volume sizing) to manage it until now. If they're not using snapshots, they should, and probably will soon enough.
    maltztenthousandthingscornchip
  • Reply 44 of 98
    melgross said:
    colinng said:
    dougd said:
    Apple greed at work, they will charge 3x what other SSDs cost.
    I really doubt that. Apple has shown time & again that their engineers lead with what they believe is the best solution for the product. The pundits and rumormongers just come up with their own invented reasons, which are conjecture only. 

    Actually, Apple has been known to just take a standard connector, flip the pins to different locations, and charge you differently. AirPort cards were just PCMCIA cards with 2 pins swapped. They started cheaper than PCMCIA cards but eventually the cost of a PCMCIA card dropped but the AirPort card stayed the same. 

    When it comes to flash storage, same thing. 

    As proof, here is a simple adapter that turns a standard SSD into one that works in your MacBook Air or Pro. The adapter is tiny because it contains no logic converters - it just, **surprise** swaps the pins! 

    https://www.amazon.com/Sintech-Adapter-Upgrade-2013-2016-2013-2015/dp/B07FYY3H5F/

    To courageously innovate around that, in 2016 they soldered the flash straight on to the logic board - giving you no choice but to pre-buy all the storage you anxiously worried that you might need down the road - and they charged handsomely for it. 

    Fanboys will say nobody upgrades. Pro users will say they upgrade if they can (that is why the new Mac Pro is the most upgradeable Mac ever - a course correction against the cylindrical Mac Pro). So who is right? Would MacBook Pro users buy less flash to start with, and buy more flash later (when it dropped in price) - if they could? 

    A company doesn’t boast a 38% margin (while the rest of the industry struggles to get past single-digit margin) and higher ASP just because they were able to be 38% cost efficient when everyone else was only 9% cost efficient. It is very hard to be 400% better than your long-lived competitors. 

    I’m not saying Apple is evil. They’re just doing business. They can compete any (legal) way they want to. 

    What I am saying is, some of us have had enough of these shenanigans. And we have proof that is what these actions are - shenanigans. 

    While I’m expressing my disappointment, “Apple pays every tax dollar it owes” is mindless drivel. Of course it does! Else they end up in jail! But “what it owes” isn’t some fair number arrived at that is mutually beneficial to the countries it operates in - it is a number arrived at where one country (Ireland) decides to be corrupt and set an artificially low tax rate in hopes of getting some revenue and shutting out other countries. 
    Oh, for crying out loud. I’ve been using Macs since 1988, but PCs since 1981, and computers since 1966. I’ve seen it all. Most of what you’re saying is pure drivel. Industries that mostly use Macs don’t use them because they’re overpriced, and marketed well. If you don’t understand that, then don’t bother to be in the conversation.

    [deleted]

    as far as taxes go. If it’s legal, then I hope a company is taking every advantage of that. The reality is that Apple did nothing illegal in Europe. Many European companies do exactly the same thing. So I say, change the laws. Companies will then be forced to follow them. But if the laws allow something, a company should do it. It’s not their responsibility to pay more taxes than they have to. It’s not like tipping in a restaurant. It’s like paying the bill itself.
    No, what's he saying up until the detour to taxes is accurate and factual, not opinion, except for one sentence ("shenanigans" was opinion). I'm OK with paying Apple's higher prices, for the most part - I own a 2018 MBP with top configuration. Except... it's not really the top config, it's got 1TB SSD instead of 4TB, because Apple's SSD prices are *nuts*. RAM prices too, but they're easier to stomach and harder to work around. No RAM on thunderbolt, after all. I also own a 2013 Air, and I was seriously unhappy when the SSD died and I couldn't source a replacement (that ebay connector board is fairly new). Didn't change my mind about the value of the Mac when I first bought it - I knew about the SSD connector then.

    I think Apple's making a mistake pricing their upgrades as high as they do - I think they'd grow their market, and improve cust sat rate, by dropping RAM prices some and SSD prices a LOT (given the cratering of SSD costs/prices in the last year). Oh, and get rid of the HD-only iMac option, that's seriously stupid. But in the end, you buy the package or you don't, and getting angry about it is silly. Either it's worth it or it's not, and that includes option prices and whatever standard or non-standard parts and ports are in the machine.

    As for taxes... That was a bizarre digression, and unrelated to the main topic. I like your restaurant analogy.
    colinngfastasleep
  • Reply 45 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    That's one thing I'm concerned about the T2 because they bottleneck the SSD performance since both flash modules and controller keeps improving over time.  Judging on the iMac Pro, I'm sure those "SSDs" are just raw flash modules, whereas the T2 chip ties the controller within.  That limited any future performance improvement, but every computer with an M.2 running PCIe 3.0 have the potential to upgrade a faster SSD.

    Maybe that's not a problem for a Mac Pro, but not the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros.
    I'm not certain that they'll get that much faster. While the theoretical max speed of the PCI-E 3.0 x4 connector with a M.2 slot is 3600 megabytes per second or so, the reality is a bit less, perhaps 2900 megabytes per second.
    I don't think that's the case.  x4 should run at 3.9GB/s maximum and M.2 is just another form of it.  Source?

     https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Overview-of-M-2-SSDs-586/
    Their numbers aren't including overhead for the PCI-E connection itself. Best case, that overhead is 10%, thus the 3600 megabytes per second.
    It's actually around 1.54% for PCIe 3.0, so 985MB/s.  You got 3.9GB/s when it times four.

    https://www.tested.com/tech/457440-theoretical-vs-actual-bandwidth-pci-express-and-thunderbolt/
    https://www.overclock.net/forum/355-ssd/1489684-ssd-interface-comparison-pci-express-vs-sata.html

    But whether it's 3.6 or 3.9, it left both the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros lots of room for improvement.
    Huh, TIL.

    Still, there is NVMe storage overhead too. I just don't think there's as much leeway for growth as you do, is all.
    I've talked to a friend about this and he thinks the T2 is better optimized for APFS.  That might be true, but I'm not sure some software improvements will overcome hardware advancements.

    Then again, I know nothing about SSD controllers.  All of them could have different architectures.
    There are over a half dozen major SSD  controller architectures out there. New ones come around every year or two.
    Right, which is why I think locking your SSD in the T2 isn’t a good idea.
    1. No upgrade options, once obsolete, forever obsolete.
    2. (Some) nearly impossible to remove, you’ll need to perform SMD soldering.
    I’m not so sure that the controller architecture should matter, as the computer doesn’t interact with it on a low level. I believe that Apple is doing this for security purposes. These drives are locked with the T2 chip. It’s possible that Apple has some circuit on the drive that enhances this. If so, will a third party drive work? I guess we’ll find out.

    its like the Touch ID button being replaced by third party repair services. I’m sure we remember that. Apple serializes the button because it’s part of the security system involving touch and the Secure Enclave. When they were replaced by parts that may have been genuine, or maybe not, they weren’t synced with the enclave, and Touch ID didn’t work. That was where the furor over “Right to Repair” partly came from. But Apple was right. Allowing third parties to replace that button would have been a problem. If Apple sold them the equipment to sync it up, then it could have been corrupted, and the security bypassed.

    no win there either way. So I think that Apple may be doing something like that here for security.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 46 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    DuhSesame said:
    brianm said:
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    That's one thing I'm concerned about the T2 because they bottleneck the SSD performance since both flash modules and controller keeps improving over time.  Judging on the iMac Pro, I'm sure those "SSDs" are just raw flash modules, whereas the T2 chip ties the controller within.  That limited any future performance improvement, but every computer with an M.2 running PCIe 3.0 have the potential to upgrade a faster SSD.

    Maybe that's not a problem for a Mac Pro, but not the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros.
    I'm not certain that they'll get that much faster. While the theoretical max speed of the PCI-E 3.0 x4 connector with a M.2 slot is 3600 megabytes per second or so, the reality is a bit less, perhaps 2900 megabytes per second.
    I don't think that's the case.  x4 should run at 3.9GB/s maximum and M.2 is just another form of it.  Source?

     https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Overview-of-M-2-SSDs-586/
    Their numbers aren't including overhead for the PCI-E connection itself. Best case, that overhead is 10%, thus the 3600 megabytes per second.
    It's actually around 1.54% for PCIe 3.0, so 985MB/s.  You got 3.9GB/s when it times four.

    https://www.tested.com/tech/457440-theoretical-vs-actual-bandwidth-pci-express-and-thunderbolt/
    https://www.overclock.net/forum/355-ssd/1489684-ssd-interface-comparison-pci-express-vs-sata.html

    But whether it's 3.6 or 3.9, it left both the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros lots of room for improvement.
    Huh, TIL.

    Still, there is NVMe storage overhead too. I just don't think there's as much leeway for growth as you do, is all.
    I've talked to a friend about this and he thinks the T2 is better optimized for APFS.  That might be true, but I'm not sure some software improvements will overcome hardware advancements.

    Then again, I know nothing about SSD controllers.  All of them could have different architectures.
    There are over a half dozen major SSD  controller architectures out there. New ones come around every year or two.
    Right, which is why I think locking your SSD in the T2 isn’t a good idea.
    1. No upgrade options, once obsolete, forever obsolete.
    2. (Some) nearly impossible to remove, you’ll need to perform SMD soldering.
    Change security settings after setting up the initial admin account so you can boot from "external drives" - which may allow booting from PCIe cards as well if the OS itself has built-in drives for that - worst case from an external Thunderbolt drive that could be using whatever the latest technology is.

    If it's not the T2, it's another controller of some sort that handles the storage and whatever connector the motherboard comes with like M.2 that has limits as well.
    in the case of the T2 though, it looks like whatever apple does is just a PCIe connection to the flash chips (in the MacMini or MacBook Pro's it's soldered instead) - the T2 handles all the stuff the "on-board" SSD chip functions would do plus a more integrated encryption solution.
    The SSD controller is certainly integrated into T2, obviously.  I think instead having it’s own CPU cores like others, it might use those A10 cores, which might be an advantage, but the drive speed doesn’t seems any faster.  I don’t worry about the Mac Pro mainly because it only serves as system drives and you can always plug one in slots, but it will be awkward for the rest of the lineups.
    I think some people are taking the speed too much to heart. It’s still pretty darn fast. I’m more concerned with my data drives. Large video projects and such. If someone really needs speed, they’ll pony the money up for the RAM, and run their data there, as is done, if possible, for large databases, transactional software, CAD and video rendering.

    if you opt to use one of these drives for a photoshop drive, then these will be dandy. But photoshop is still behind when opening and closing files. So that’s slower than it should be no matter how fast the drive is.
    cgWerkscornchip
  • Reply 47 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    melgross said:
    colinng said:
    dougd said:
    Apple greed at work, they will charge 3x what other SSDs cost.
    I really doubt that. Apple has shown time & again that their engineers lead with what they believe is the best solution for the product. The pundits and rumormongers just come up with their own invented reasons, which are conjecture only. 

    Actually, Apple has been known to just take a standard connector, flip the pins to different locations, and charge you differently. AirPort cards were just PCMCIA cards with 2 pins swapped. They started cheaper than PCMCIA cards but eventually the cost of a PCMCIA card dropped but the AirPort card stayed the same. 

    When it comes to flash storage, same thing. 

    As proof, here is a simple adapter that turns a standard SSD into one that works in your MacBook Air or Pro. The adapter is tiny because it contains no logic converters - it just, **surprise** swaps the pins! 

    https://www.amazon.com/Sintech-Adapter-Upgrade-2013-2016-2013-2015/dp/B07FYY3H5F/

    To courageously innovate around that, in 2016 they soldered the flash straight on to the logic board - giving you no choice but to pre-buy all the storage you anxiously worried that you might need down the road - and they charged handsomely for it. 

    Fanboys will say nobody upgrades. Pro users will say they upgrade if they can (that is why the new Mac Pro is the most upgradeable Mac ever - a course correction against the cylindrical Mac Pro). So who is right? Would MacBook Pro users buy less flash to start with, and buy more flash later (when it dropped in price) - if they could? 

    A company doesn’t boast a 38% margin (while the rest of the industry struggles to get past single-digit margin) and higher ASP just because they were able to be 38% cost efficient when everyone else was only 9% cost efficient. It is very hard to be 400% better than your long-lived competitors. 

    I’m not saying Apple is evil. They’re just doing business. They can compete any (legal) way they want to. 

    What I am saying is, some of us have had enough of these shenanigans. And we have proof that is what these actions are - shenanigans. 

    While I’m expressing my disappointment, “Apple pays every tax dollar it owes” is mindless drivel. Of course it does! Else they end up in jail! But “what it owes” isn’t some fair number arrived at that is mutually beneficial to the countries it operates in - it is a number arrived at where one country (Ireland) decides to be corrupt and set an artificially low tax rate in hopes of getting some revenue and shutting out other countries. 
    Oh, for crying out loud. I’ve been using Macs since 1988, but PCs since 1981, and computers since 1966. I’ve seen it all. Most of what you’re saying is pure drivel. Industries that mostly use Macs don’t use them because they’re overpriced, and marketed well. If you don’t understand that, then don’t bother to be in the conversation.

    [deleted]

    as far as taxes go. If it’s legal, then I hope a company is taking every advantage of that. The reality is that Apple did nothing illegal in Europe. Many European companies do exactly the same thing. So I say, change the laws. Companies will then be forced to follow them. But if the laws allow something, a company should do it. It’s not their responsibility to pay more taxes than they have to. It’s not like tipping in a restaurant. It’s like paying the bill itself.
    No, what's he saying up until the detour to taxes is accurate and factual, not opinion, except for one sentence ("shenanigans" was opinion). I'm OK with paying Apple's higher prices, for the most part - I own a 2018 MBP with top configuration. Except... it's not really the top config, it's got 1TB SSD instead of 4TB, because Apple's SSD prices are *nuts*. RAM prices too, but they're easier to stomach and harder to work around. No RAM on thunderbolt, after all. I also own a 2013 Air, and I was seriously unhappy when the SSD died and I couldn't source a replacement (that ebay connector board is fairly new). Didn't change my mind about the value of the Mac when I first bought it - I knew about the SSD connector then.

    I think Apple's making a mistake pricing their upgrades as high as they do - I think they'd grow their market, and improve cust sat rate, by dropping RAM prices some and SSD prices a LOT (given the cratering of SSD costs/prices in the last year). Oh, and get rid of the HD-only iMac option, that's seriously stupid. But in the end, you buy the package or you don't, and getting angry about it is silly. Either it's worth it or it's not, and that includes option prices and whatever standard or non-standard parts and ports are in the machine.

    As for taxes... That was a bizarre digression, and unrelated to the main topic. I like your restaurant analogy.
    Over the years, Apple HAS been dropping their RAM and drive prices closer to market.  But they can’t follow market pricing. Apple, and other large organizations, buy memory some time in advance, at fixed prices. If prices drop, or rise, they charge the same. After a year, or two, they get new pricing, and their prices reflect that. But they’re always a good year behind, because they have to wrap this up early to make sure they have the supply they need. It’s not like us buying from OWC, or from someone on eBay.
    cornchipfastasleep
  • Reply 48 of 98
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,753member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    colinng said:
    dougd said:
    Apple greed at work, they will charge 3x what other SSDs cost.
    I really doubt that. Apple has shown time & again that their engineers lead with what they believe is the best solution for the product. The pundits and rumormongers just come up with their own invented reasons, which are conjecture only. 

    Actually, Apple has been known to just take a standard connector, flip the pins to different locations, and charge you differently. AirPort cards were just PCMCIA cards with 2 pins swapped. They started cheaper than PCMCIA cards but eventually the cost of a PCMCIA card dropped but the AirPort card stayed the same. 

    When it comes to flash storage, same thing. 

    As proof, here is a simple adapter that turns a standard SSD into one that works in your MacBook Air or Pro. The adapter is tiny because it contains no logic converters - it just, **surprise** swaps the pins! 

    https://www.amazon.com/Sintech-Adapter-Upgrade-2013-2016-2013-2015/dp/B07FYY3H5F/

    To courageously innovate around that, in 2016 they soldered the flash straight on to the logic board - giving you no choice but to pre-buy all the storage you anxiously worried that you might need down the road - and they charged handsomely for it. 

    Fanboys will say nobody upgrades. Pro users will say they upgrade if they can (that is why the new Mac Pro is the most upgradeable Mac ever - a course correction against the cylindrical Mac Pro). So who is right? Would MacBook Pro users buy less flash to start with, and buy more flash later (when it dropped in price) - if they could? 

    A company doesn’t boast a 38% margin (while the rest of the industry struggles to get past single-digit margin) and higher ASP just because they were able to be 38% cost efficient when everyone else was only 9% cost efficient. It is very hard to be 400% better than your long-lived competitors. 

    I’m not saying Apple is evil. They’re just doing business. They can compete any (legal) way they want to. 

    What I am saying is, some of us have had enough of these shenanigans. And we have proof that is what these actions are - shenanigans. 

    While I’m expressing my disappointment, “Apple pays every tax dollar it owes” is mindless drivel. Of course it does! Else they end up in jail! But “what it owes” isn’t some fair number arrived at that is mutually beneficial to the countries it operates in - it is a number arrived at where one country (Ireland) decides to be corrupt and set an artificially low tax rate in hopes of getting some revenue and shutting out other countries. 
    Oh, for crying out loud. I’ve been using Macs since 1988, but PCs since 1981, and computers since 1966. I’ve seen it all. Most of what you’re saying is pure drivel. Industries that mostly use Macs don’t use them because they’re overpriced, and marketed well. If you don’t understand that, then don’t bother to be in the conversation.

    [deleted]

    as far as taxes go. If it’s legal, then I hope a company is taking every advantage of that. The reality is that Apple did nothing illegal in Europe. Many European companies do exactly the same thing. So I say, change the laws. Companies will then be forced to follow them. But if the laws allow something, a company should do it. It’s not their responsibility to pay more taxes than they have to. It’s not like tipping in a restaurant. It’s like paying the bill itself.
    No, what's he saying up until the detour to taxes is accurate and factual, not opinion, except for one sentence ("shenanigans" was opinion). I'm OK with paying Apple's higher prices, for the most part - I own a 2018 MBP with top configuration. Except... it's not really the top config, it's got 1TB SSD instead of 4TB, because Apple's SSD prices are *nuts*. RAM prices too, but they're easier to stomach and harder to work around. No RAM on thunderbolt, after all. I also own a 2013 Air, and I was seriously unhappy when the SSD died and I couldn't source a replacement (that ebay connector board is fairly new). Didn't change my mind about the value of the Mac when I first bought it - I knew about the SSD connector then.

    I think Apple's making a mistake pricing their upgrades as high as they do - I think they'd grow their market, and improve cust sat rate, by dropping RAM prices some and SSD prices a LOT (given the cratering of SSD costs/prices in the last year). Oh, and get rid of the HD-only iMac option, that's seriously stupid. But in the end, you buy the package or you don't, and getting angry about it is silly. Either it's worth it or it's not, and that includes option prices and whatever standard or non-standard parts and ports are in the machine.

    As for taxes... That was a bizarre digression, and unrelated to the main topic. I like your restaurant analogy.
    Over the years, Apple HAS been dropping their RAM and drive prices closer to market.  But they can’t follow market pricing. Apple, and other large organizations, buy memory some time in advance, at fixed prices. If prices drop, or rise, they charge the same. After a year, or two, they get new pricing, and their prices reflect that. But they’re always a good year behind, because they have to wrap this up early to make sure they have the supply they need. It’s not like us buying from OWC, or from someone on eBay.
    Really? I've not noticed any downward trend in the past say, 10 years. Apple buys enough RAM that the overall market trends won't have much of an effect, they'll be paying at most half the price the average consumer can get it for, and most likely much less than that. What about the flash in iPhones? A 64GB flash chip is a couple of dollars. A 128GB one is about $5. And yet Apple charges $100 for the upgrade. You can guarantee that if market prices suddenly rose versus when Apple bought the RAM, they'd up their prices too. So why not when the prices fall?
  • Reply 49 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    elijahg said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    colinng said:
    dougd said:
    Apple greed at work, they will charge 3x what other SSDs cost.
    I really doubt that. Apple has shown time & again that their engineers lead with what they believe is the best solution for the product. The pundits and rumormongers just come up with their own invented reasons, which are conjecture only. 

    Actually, Apple has been known to just take a standard connector, flip the pins to different locations, and charge you differently. AirPort cards were just PCMCIA cards with 2 pins swapped. They started cheaper than PCMCIA cards but eventually the cost of a PCMCIA card dropped but the AirPort card stayed the same. 

    When it comes to flash storage, same thing. 

    As proof, here is a simple adapter that turns a standard SSD into one that works in your MacBook Air or Pro. The adapter is tiny because it contains no logic converters - it just, **surprise** swaps the pins! 

    https://www.amazon.com/Sintech-Adapter-Upgrade-2013-2016-2013-2015/dp/B07FYY3H5F/

    To courageously innovate around that, in 2016 they soldered the flash straight on to the logic board - giving you no choice but to pre-buy all the storage you anxiously worried that you might need down the road - and they charged handsomely for it. 

    Fanboys will say nobody upgrades. Pro users will say they upgrade if they can (that is why the new Mac Pro is the most upgradeable Mac ever - a course correction against the cylindrical Mac Pro). So who is right? Would MacBook Pro users buy less flash to start with, and buy more flash later (when it dropped in price) - if they could? 

    A company doesn’t boast a 38% margin (while the rest of the industry struggles to get past single-digit margin) and higher ASP just because they were able to be 38% cost efficient when everyone else was only 9% cost efficient. It is very hard to be 400% better than your long-lived competitors. 

    I’m not saying Apple is evil. They’re just doing business. They can compete any (legal) way they want to. 

    What I am saying is, some of us have had enough of these shenanigans. And we have proof that is what these actions are - shenanigans. 

    While I’m expressing my disappointment, “Apple pays every tax dollar it owes” is mindless drivel. Of course it does! Else they end up in jail! But “what it owes” isn’t some fair number arrived at that is mutually beneficial to the countries it operates in - it is a number arrived at where one country (Ireland) decides to be corrupt and set an artificially low tax rate in hopes of getting some revenue and shutting out other countries. 
    Oh, for crying out loud. I’ve been using Macs since 1988, but PCs since 1981, and computers since 1966. I’ve seen it all. Most of what you’re saying is pure drivel. Industries that mostly use Macs don’t use them because they’re overpriced, and marketed well. If you don’t understand that, then don’t bother to be in the conversation.

    [deleted]

    as far as taxes go. If it’s legal, then I hope a company is taking every advantage of that. The reality is that Apple did nothing illegal in Europe. Many European companies do exactly the same thing. So I say, change the laws. Companies will then be forced to follow them. But if the laws allow something, a company should do it. It’s not their responsibility to pay more taxes than they have to. It’s not like tipping in a restaurant. It’s like paying the bill itself.
    No, what's he saying up until the detour to taxes is accurate and factual, not opinion, except for one sentence ("shenanigans" was opinion). I'm OK with paying Apple's higher prices, for the most part - I own a 2018 MBP with top configuration. Except... it's not really the top config, it's got 1TB SSD instead of 4TB, because Apple's SSD prices are *nuts*. RAM prices too, but they're easier to stomach and harder to work around. No RAM on thunderbolt, after all. I also own a 2013 Air, and I was seriously unhappy when the SSD died and I couldn't source a replacement (that ebay connector board is fairly new). Didn't change my mind about the value of the Mac when I first bought it - I knew about the SSD connector then.

    I think Apple's making a mistake pricing their upgrades as high as they do - I think they'd grow their market, and improve cust sat rate, by dropping RAM prices some and SSD prices a LOT (given the cratering of SSD costs/prices in the last year). Oh, and get rid of the HD-only iMac option, that's seriously stupid. But in the end, you buy the package or you don't, and getting angry about it is silly. Either it's worth it or it's not, and that includes option prices and whatever standard or non-standard parts and ports are in the machine.

    As for taxes... That was a bizarre digression, and unrelated to the main topic. I like your restaurant analogy.
    Over the years, Apple HAS been dropping their RAM and drive prices closer to market.  But they can’t follow market pricing. Apple, and other large organizations, buy memory some time in advance, at fixed prices. If prices drop, or rise, they charge the same. After a year, or two, they get new pricing, and their prices reflect that. But they’re always a good year behind, because they have to wrap this up early to make sure they have the supply they need. It’s not like us buying from OWC, or from someone on eBay.
    Really? I've not noticed any downward trend in the past say, 10 years. Apple buys enough RAM that the overall market trends won't have much of an effect, they'll be paying at most half the price the average consumer can get it for, and most likely much less than that. What about the flash in iPhones? A 64GB flash chip is a couple of dollars. A 128GB one is about $5. And yet Apple charges $100 for the upgrade. You can guarantee that if market prices suddenly rose versus when Apple bought the RAM, they'd up their prices too. So why not when the prices fall?
    Well, it has, and it’s been commented upon. The price of a product at retail is between 2.5 to 3.5 the part cost. So if Apple pays $100 for memory, you will pay between $250 and $350. That’s standard markup. If they have to do something g extra to it, such as certify the system with it, the price will be higher. We’ve discussed manufacturing here as well, over the years.

    what are you expecting, that Apple charges you the same thing they pay? What company is that stupid?
    fastasleep
  • Reply 50 of 98
    colinngcolinng Posts: 116member
    ("shenanigans" was opinion). 

    You're right. It was judgmental on my part, an unwarranted speculation on Apple's motive, and purely my opinion at that moment. I definitely do better when sticking to facts. 

    As for taxes... That was a bizarre digression, and unrelated to the main topic. 
    Agreed. Will stay on topic. I was hoping to illustrate that being overly pro-Apple is not a feasible stance, as they on occasion make decisions that don't always seem in favor of the general public. But again, it was off-topic and such digressions shall be excised in the future. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 51 of 98
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    colinng said:
    If I were in the market for 6 cores I would get a Mac mini 2018 with the minimum storage, plug in a USB-C SanDisk 1TB for cheap, get an LG 43” 4K, and call it a day. Some people on the WayTools forum have tried that with great success, and laughed all the way to the bank with the money they saved. 

    If I wanted 8 cores I would wait for the Mac mini refresh. 
    Yeah, that's kind of what I did... but as nice as it is, it is far from ideal as it could/should be. The main problem is the thermals. If you do heavy stuff, the fans ramp up. Not only is that noisy, but I wonder about impact on longevity. But, unfortunately, that's the best option we have w/o spending boat-loads of cash. I suppose the iMac Pro is the next step up if you don't mind an all-in-one (single-use display).

    Also, you pretty much have to add an eGPU (upping the package price), unless you're just doing data crunching or that kind of thing.

    MacPro said:
    It's becoming clear to me that there are a lot of folks that would like what is basically an iMac /iMac Pro in a mid-sized tower without a screen using industry standard I/O and slots and industry standard RAM and SATA connectors.  I am sure Apple could sell a boatload of these at around $2-4K depending on the BTO.  The Mac Pro is a wonderful machine but I don't see any video industry pro wanting the base model they will be ordering mid to high end versions. The entry version serves no user base I can think of.
    Agreed, basically the fabled xMac, possibly with less expandability/tinker-ness... though many would love that too.

    I think the base Mac Pro exists just as a launching off point. Depending on what your industry is, you wouldn't want a particular aspect of it boosted unless you need it. If you're buying it mainly for the CPUs/storage, why put more than a 580X in there? If you're buying it for video production, you'll probably want a particular size storage, or the minimum is fine as you'll be using other storage anyway. If you're buying it for rendering, minimum storage might be just fine, but you'll want the better GPUs, maybe CPUs. If you're buying it as some kind of server, you might just want minimums of everything but storage, which you probably don't need to be those boot SSDs. etc.

    davgreg said:
    I have the top CPU Mac mini and it is a nice basic desktop but is hobbled by integrated graphics and thermal issues due to the case design. Simply transcoding video spools up the fan quickly and uses significant resources, so it is not a reasonable solution to replace the work of my Cheesegrater Mac. 

    I will buy the standard configuration of the new Pro and maybe bump up the memory.
    Yeah, same here but I just don't have the cashflow to do what you're talking about right now. If I get back in the rendering business, it might not be a no-brainer, but I'd probably do it. I spent around $3k on my mini setup, so doubling that for a bit better performance, but lots of future expandability, and being incredibly robust, might have been worthwhile.

    Your complaints on the mini are similar to mine. I do wish it had proper thermals. (BTW, the integrated graphics is good for h.264 encoding, as we discovered on another thread). And, also re: that other thread (https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/210419/apples-t2-chip-makes-a-giant-difference-in-video-encoding-for-most-users/p3) you'll want to take a look at using HEVC and your T2. Unless you have some reason not to, the performance is astounding!

    elijahg said:
    How do you justify them charging 3x the market price for a 1TB Fusion drive to 512gb SSD upgrade?
    The problem is that what most people are talking about isn't apples to apples. What is the market price for 512GB SSD? Any ol' SATA SSD? M.2? What Apple is actually using? While Apple's upgrades are a bit expensive, typically comparing the actual item (if available) shows the pricing isn't as inflated as some claim. (I remember a thread about the 2018 mini memory not too long ago, where when apples-to-apples was applied, the difference in $ was like 15% higher, not double as many were claiming.)

    The legit complaint would be why Apple can't offer a simple Fusion drive to standard SATA SSD upgrade, which you're right, would cost like $50 or less, even for me (let alone Apple's purchasing capabilities). Apple's solution is higher end than that. But, that doesn't mean the typical user wouldn't rather have the cost savings than the highest end of parts.

    melgross said:
    apple is not only not worse, but they’re better. Yes, you can buy cheap Wintel computers, but that’s what you’re getting. Most Wintel users won’t pay more than a minimum, so that’s what those companies make, and their margins are at the bone, so they have financial problems. Look at Dell’s problems. And look at what happened to Hp. Are those the shining examples that Apple is supposed to follow? I hope not.
    No doubt. I lived (and worked though) the 'let's build our own server' phase in businesses in the 90s. Fortunately, it think *most* businesses learned their lesson from that one. They still might buy one-step-up junk to throw en masse on user-desks, but at least they have an actual company behind that for when it breaks (at least as long as that company survives, as you say).

    But, this isn't what any higher end company does in the server room, nor in specialized departments with high-demand. When it comes to that, they spend big-bucks. As I mentioned in another thread, I used to spec out $30k to $50k servers to put in our racks all the time. We'd even often buy a bunch of new and get rid of the older ones at fiscal year end, to keep the budget (ie: we've gotta spend $250k somewhere so we don't get $250k less next year, so have at it).
    cornchip
  • Reply 52 of 98
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,278member
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    brianm said:
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:
    That's one thing I'm concerned about the T2 because they bottleneck the SSD performance since both flash modules and controller keeps improving over time.  Judging on the iMac Pro, I'm sure those "SSDs" are just raw flash modules, whereas the T2 chip ties the controller within.  That limited any future performance improvement, but every computer with an M.2 running PCIe 3.0 have the potential to upgrade a faster SSD.

    Maybe that's not a problem for a Mac Pro, but not the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros.
    I'm not certain that they'll get that much faster. While the theoretical max speed of the PCI-E 3.0 x4 connector with a M.2 slot is 3600 megabytes per second or so, the reality is a bit less, perhaps 2900 megabytes per second.
    I don't think that's the case.  x4 should run at 3.9GB/s maximum and M.2 is just another form of it.  Source?

     https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Overview-of-M-2-SSDs-586/
    Their numbers aren't including overhead for the PCI-E connection itself. Best case, that overhead is 10%, thus the 3600 megabytes per second.
    It's actually around 1.54% for PCIe 3.0, so 985MB/s.  You got 3.9GB/s when it times four.

    https://www.tested.com/tech/457440-theoretical-vs-actual-bandwidth-pci-express-and-thunderbolt/
    https://www.overclock.net/forum/355-ssd/1489684-ssd-interface-comparison-pci-express-vs-sata.html

    But whether it's 3.6 or 3.9, it left both the iMac Pro and MacBook Pros lots of room for improvement.
    Huh, TIL.

    Still, there is NVMe storage overhead too. I just don't think there's as much leeway for growth as you do, is all.
    I've talked to a friend about this and he thinks the T2 is better optimized for APFS.  That might be true, but I'm not sure some software improvements will overcome hardware advancements.

    Then again, I know nothing about SSD controllers.  All of them could have different architectures.
    There are over a half dozen major SSD  controller architectures out there. New ones come around every year or two.
    Right, which is why I think locking your SSD in the T2 isn’t a good idea.
    1. No upgrade options, once obsolete, forever obsolete.
    2. (Some) nearly impossible to remove, you’ll need to perform SMD soldering.
    Change security settings after setting up the initial admin account so you can boot from "external drives" - which may allow booting from PCIe cards as well if the OS itself has built-in drives for that - worst case from an external Thunderbolt drive that could be using whatever the latest technology is.

    If it's not the T2, it's another controller of some sort that handles the storage and whatever connector the motherboard comes with like M.2 that has limits as well.
    in the case of the T2 though, it looks like whatever apple does is just a PCIe connection to the flash chips (in the MacMini or MacBook Pro's it's soldered instead) - the T2 handles all the stuff the "on-board" SSD chip functions would do plus a more integrated encryption solution.
    The SSD controller is certainly integrated into T2, obviously.  I think instead having it’s own CPU cores like others, it might use those A10 cores, which might be an advantage, but the drive speed doesn’t seems any faster.  I don’t worry about the Mac Pro mainly because it only serves as system drives and you can always plug one in slots, but it will be awkward for the rest of the lineups.
    I think some people are taking the speed too much to heart. It’s still pretty darn fast. I’m more concerned with my data drives. Large video projects and such. If someone really needs speed, they’ll pony the money up for the RAM, and run their data there, as is done, if possible, for large databases, transactional software, CAD and video rendering.

    if you opt to use one of these drives for a photoshop drive, then these will be dandy. But photoshop is still behind when opening and closing files. So that’s slower than it should be no matter how fast the drive is.
    I think you can take this into different perspectives, the T2 does indeed make your files more secure with speed that’s fast enough, or trade it off with the fastest possible solutions.  To me it’s hard to take when older laptops got a chance to outrun your newest equipments.
  • Reply 53 of 98
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Right, which is why I think locking your SSD in the T2 isn’t a good idea.
    1. No upgrade options, once obsolete, forever obsolete.
    2. (Some) nearly impossible to remove, you’ll need to perform SMD soldering.
    I’m not so sure that the controller architecture should matter, as the computer doesn’t interact with it on a low level. I believe that Apple is doing this for security purposes. These drives are locked with the T2 chip. It’s possible that Apple has some circuit on the drive that enhances this. If so, will a third party drive work? I guess we’ll find out.

    its like the Touch ID button being replaced by third party repair services. I’m sure we remember that. Apple serializes the button because it’s part of the security system involving touch and the Secure Enclave. When they were replaced by parts that may have been genuine, or maybe not, they weren’t synced with the enclave, and Touch ID didn’t work. That was where the furor over “Right to Repair” partly came from. But Apple was right. Allowing third parties to replace that button would have been a problem. If Apple sold them the equipment to sync it up, then it could have been corrupted, and the security bypassed.

    no win there either way. So I think that Apple may be doing something like that here for security.
    It's not built the way you think it is.

    The flash modules in the MP are like the flash chips on the MBPs: raw flash. There is no separate flash controller, that entire function is built into the T2.

    The T2 has upsides and downsides. Some of those downsides (like occasional crashes) are on their way out, as Apple fixes up their software. However they're unlikely to be able to improve flash read/write speed, as that's something they would have put a ton of effort into right up front, optimizing software + hardware, and probably even putting fixed-function blocks into the T2 for this purpose. You're not going to speed up those with software.

    I don't have anything against the T2 per se, it's that it prevents us from using a faster SSD (with onboard controller). And that's because you can't give the T2 an NVMe flash drive, it wants raw flash. (Edit: I mean, using the builtin flash slots. As I said elsewhere, you can always drop in a single PCIe card holding 4x NVMes if you like, as the T2 isn't involved in that.)

    Note that this could be fixed by Apple, with a trivial update to the T2, such that it could also talk NVMe. (Edit: That would degrade I/O latency to the NVMe compared to direct PCIe connection, but probably not by all that much.) Or they could built a wider T2X for the next nnMP with more throughput (you'd want that in your MBPs by 2021 anyway, to compete with PCIe 4/5 NVMe). But it doesn't work right now. They could also simply provide a couple of NVMe slots in addition to whatever builtin flash they provide. I'd prefer that, but I consider it unlikely.

    Who knows though? There are two SATA connectors in the nnMP, and I'd have given 2:1 odds they're do SAS instead. Still no clue why they used SATA.
    edited June 2019 elijahgfastasleep
  • Reply 54 of 98
    melgross said:
    I think some people are taking the speed too much to heart. It’s still pretty darn fast. I’m more concerned with my data drives. Large video projects and such. If someone really needs speed, they’ll pony the money up for the RAM, and run their data there, as is done, if possible, for large databases, transactional software, CAD and video rendering.
    That's a very good point. And yet, when you're buying premium, it's annoying to get something that's a bit behind the times. It's not enough to matter much, and I think it won't change any purchasing decisions (at least in rational purchasers, which will be nearly everyone shelling out for the nnMP). But It's still not a great look.
  • Reply 55 of 98
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,278member
    melgross said:
    I think some people are taking the speed too much to heart. It’s still pretty darn fast. I’m more concerned with my data drives. Large video projects and such. If someone really needs speed, they’ll pony the money up for the RAM, and run their data there, as is done, if possible, for large databases, transactional software, CAD and video rendering.
    That's a very good point. And yet, when you're buying premium, it's annoying to get something that's a bit behind the times. It's not enough to matter much, and I think it won't change any purchasing decisions (at least in rational purchasers, which will be nearly everyone shelling out for the nnMP). But It's still not a great look.
    At least you can plug two x8 SSDs in the PCI-E slot, and only use on-board flash as system drive, you can’t do that on iMac Pro/MacBooks.  That being said, Apple build their own SSD controllers since 2015.  I wonder if Apple is using its A10 cores for controlling flash chips, and if it does, would it gives an edge if possible.
  • Reply 56 of 98
    melgross said:
    No, what's he saying up until the detour to taxes is accurate and factual, not opinion, except for one sentence ("shenanigans" was opinion). I'm OK with paying Apple's higher prices, for the most part - I own a 2018 MBP with top configuration. Except... it's not really the top config, it's got 1TB SSD instead of 4TB, because Apple's SSD prices are *nuts*. RAM prices too, but they're easier to stomach and harder to work around. No RAM on thunderbolt, after all. I also own a 2013 Air, and I was seriously unhappy when the SSD died and I couldn't source a replacement (that ebay connector board is fairly new). Didn't change my mind about the value of the Mac when I first bought it - I knew about the SSD connector then.

    I think Apple's making a mistake pricing their upgrades as high as they do - I think they'd grow their market, and improve cust sat rate, by dropping RAM prices some and SSD prices a LOT (given the cratering of SSD costs/prices in the last year). Oh, and get rid of the HD-only iMac option, that's seriously stupid. But in the end, you buy the package or you don't, and getting angry about it is silly. Either it's worth it or it's not, and that includes option prices and whatever standard or non-standard parts and ports are in the machine.

    As for taxes... That was a bizarre digression, and unrelated to the main topic. I like your restaurant analogy.
    Over the years, Apple HAS been dropping their RAM and drive prices closer to market.  But they can’t follow market pricing. Apple, and other large organizations, buy memory some time in advance, at fixed prices. If prices drop, or rise, they charge the same. After a year, or two, they get new pricing, and their prices reflect that. But they’re always a good year behind, because they have to wrap this up early to make sure they have the supply they need. It’s not like us buying from OWC, or from someone on eBay.
    They have been notoriously slow at price corrections. Apple is *famous* for playing the contract and spot markets like a concert violin. They're better at it than anyone. And yet, their SSD pricing is somewhat high even by Dell/HP/Lenovo standards. For example, bumping an MBP SSD from 512GB to 1TB runs $400, and to 2TB is $1k. HP, selling NVMe drives for their high-end workstations (the ones that can configure to 40-50k easily), charge $250 and $940. However, that just changed a few months ago - previously the Apple price for 2TB was dramatically higher. At that time, HP was much lower on the 2TB.

    When you look at them, the prices for HP and Dell are not that much lower than Apple's for RAM and SSD. But there's a big difference: With HP and Dell, I can order them with no or minimal SSD, and then buy a better one for a LOT less. I wouldn't necessarily do that, but I might, and others certainly would, and we all resent having that option taken away from us.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 57 of 98
    colinng said:
    ("shenanigans" was opinion). 

    You're right. It was judgmental on my part, an unwarranted speculation on Apple's motive, and purely my opinion at that moment. I definitely do better when sticking to facts. 

    As for taxes... That was a bizarre digression, and unrelated to the main topic. 
    Agreed. Will stay on topic. I was hoping to illustrate that being overly pro-Apple is not a feasible stance, as they on occasion make decisions that don't always seem in favor of the general public. But again, it was off-topic and such digressions shall be excised in the future. 
    Whoa, another grownup. I think we might be exceeding the allowable threshold for an internet forum. Be careful. :-)

    Nice to meet you...

    FWIW, I wasn't objecting to your use of "shenanigans". I think it's fair, and I judge them harshly for the same reasons. It's just that the rest of your post before that was objective and easily defensible, while that part was subjective.
  • Reply 58 of 98
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,622member
    dougd said:
    Apple greed at work, they will charge 3x what other SSDs cost.
    I really doubt that. Apple has shown time & again that their engineers lead with what they believe is the best solution for the product. The pundits and rumormongers just come up with their own invented reasons, which are conjecture only. 
    Time and again? Can we assume then that a 5W phone charger is all users will ever need?

    Ah! You didn't mention users. Only engineers and their 'babies'.

    When engineers lose sight of users we have a problem. The butterfly keyboard design is an example. Instead of keeping the part isolated in the design, it is married to the battery and top case.

    Later generations were 'quieter'. Shouldn't 'quiet' actually be one of the first considerations?

    Later generations may be more resistant to particle build-up. Shouldn't that have been one of the first considerations? IMO all these keyboards are time bombs. 

    I wouldn't mind so much if swapping out a failed keyboard were a trivial task but it isn't.

    Engineering decided that having it connected to the battery and top case was the best for 'the product'. 








    DuhSesamecgWerkselijahgcolinng
  • Reply 59 of 98
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,622member
    melgross said:
    colinng said:
    dougd said:
    Apple greed at work, they will charge 3x what other SSDs cost.
    I really doubt that. Apple has shown time & again that their engineers lead with what they believe is the best solution for the product. The pundits and rumormongers just come up with their own invented reasons, which are conjecture only. 

    Actually, Apple has been known to just take a standard connector, flip the pins to different locations, and charge you differently. AirPort cards were just PCMCIA cards with 2 pins swapped. They started cheaper than PCMCIA cards but eventually the cost of a PCMCIA card dropped but the AirPort card stayed the same. 

    When it comes to flash storage, same thing. 

    As proof, here is a simple adapter that turns a standard SSD into one that works in your MacBook Air or Pro. The adapter is tiny because it contains no logic converters - it just, **surprise** swaps the pins! 

    https://www.amazon.com/Sintech-Adapter-Upgrade-2013-2016-2013-2015/dp/B07FYY3H5F/

    To courageously innovate around that, in 2016 they soldered the flash straight on to the logic board - giving you no choice but to pre-buy all the storage you anxiously worried that you might need down the road - and they charged handsomely for it. 

    Fanboys will say nobody upgrades. Pro users will say they upgrade if they can (that is why the new Mac Pro is the most upgradeable Mac ever - a course correction against the cylindrical Mac Pro). So who is right? Would MacBook Pro users buy less flash to start with, and buy more flash later (when it dropped in price) - if they could? 

    A company doesn’t boast a 38% margin (while the rest of the industry struggles to get past single-digit margin) and higher ASP just because they were able to be 38% cost efficient when everyone else was only 9% cost efficient. It is very hard to be 400% better than your long-lived competitors. 

    I’m not saying Apple is evil. They’re just doing business. They can compete any (legal) way they want to. 

    What I am saying is, some of us have had enough of these shenanigans. And we have proof that is what these actions are - shenanigans. 

    While I’m expressing my disappointment, “Apple pays every tax dollar it owes” is mindless drivel. Of course it does! Else they end up in jail! But “what it owes” isn’t some fair number arrived at that is mutually beneficial to the countries it operates in - it is a number arrived at where one country (Ireland) decides to be corrupt and set an artificially low tax rate in hopes of getting some revenue and shutting out other countries. 
    Oh, for crying out loud. I’ve been using Macs since 1988, but PCs since 1981, and computers since 1966. I’ve seen it all. Most of what you’re saying is pure drivel. Industries that mostly use Macs don’t use them because they’re overpriced, and marketed well. If you don’t understand that, then don’t bother to be in the conversation.

    for those who do understand it, professional level equipment is always expensive. While Apple gets pilloried for a $995 monitor stand that’s a machined, large piece of metal, with a complex, and supposedly reliable mechanism, RED charges $500 for a simple aluminum handle for their video cameras. Others charge similarly for simple parts. I had automatic paper cutters in my lab. A small circuit board, about 3” x 5” cost $1,000 as a replacement part before 2004 (when we sold the lab). There was nothing special about that part. Agfa charged $1,200, for a power supply, that I found out later, could be bought from the manufacturer for $250. And even worse, all of the broken ones I had were still under original manufacturer’s warrantee! They told me to send them in, and they repaired them for free.

    apple is not only not worse, but they’re better. Yes, you can buy cheap Wintel computers, but that’s what you’re getting. Most Wintel users won’t pay more than a minimum, so that’s what those companies make, and their margins are at the bone, so they have financial problems. Look at Dell’s problems. And look at what happened to Hp. Are those the shining examples that Apple is supposed to follow? I hope not.

    as far as taxes go. If it’s legal, then I hope a company is taking every advantage of that. The reality is that Apple did nothing illegal in Europe. Many European companies do exactly the same thing. So I say, change the laws. Companies will then be forced to follow them. But if the laws allow something, a company should do it. It’s not their responsibility to pay more taxes than they have to. It’s not like tipping in a restaurant. It’s like paying the bill itself.
    Let's be fair. 'pure drivel'?

    Not at all. He provided a balanced opinion and supported it clearly. It was totally valid.

    Is there anything in there that wasn't actually true? I'd be more interested in that angle.

    I was nodding in agreement to almost all of it as we share largely the same opinion.

    Now, if you have anything factual to dismantle the argument I'd be interested in hearing that too.
    elijahg
  • Reply 60 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    melgross said:
    elijahg said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    colinng said:
    dougd said:
    Apple greed at work, they will charge 3x what other SSDs cost.
    I really doubt that. Apple has shown time & again that their engineers lead with what they believe is the best solution for the product. The pundits and rumormongers just come up with their own invented reasons, which are conjecture only. 

    Actually, Apple has been known to just take a standard connector, flip the pins to different locations, and charge you differently. AirPort cards were just PCMCIA cards with 2 pins swapped. They started cheaper than PCMCIA cards but eventually the cost of a PCMCIA card dropped but the AirPort card stayed the same. 

    When it comes to flash storage, same thing. 

    As proof, here is a simple adapter that turns a standard SSD into one that works in your MacBook Air or Pro. The adapter is tiny because it contains no logic converters - it just, **surprise** swaps the pins! 

    https://www.amazon.com/Sintech-Adapter-Upgrade-2013-2016-2013-2015/dp/B07FYY3H5F/

    To courageously innovate around that, in 2016 they soldered the flash straight on to the logic board - giving you no choice but to pre-buy all the storage you anxiously worried that you might need down the road - and they charged handsomely for it. 

    Fanboys will say nobody upgrades. Pro users will say they upgrade if they can (that is why the new Mac Pro is the most upgradeable Mac ever - a course correction against the cylindrical Mac Pro). So who is right? Would MacBook Pro users buy less flash to start with, and buy more flash later (when it dropped in price) - if they could? 

    A company doesn’t boast a 38% margin (while the rest of the industry struggles to get past single-digit margin) and higher ASP just because they were able to be 38% cost efficient when everyone else was only 9% cost efficient. It is very hard to be 400% better than your long-lived competitors. 

    I’m not saying Apple is evil. They’re just doing business. They can compete any (legal) way they want to. 

    What I am saying is, some of us have had enough of these shenanigans. And we have proof that is what these actions are - shenanigans. 

    While I’m expressing my disappointment, “Apple pays every tax dollar it owes” is mindless drivel. Of course it does! Else they end up in jail! But “what it owes” isn’t some fair number arrived at that is mutually beneficial to the countries it operates in - it is a number arrived at where one country (Ireland) decides to be corrupt and set an artificially low tax rate in hopes of getting some revenue and shutting out other countries. 
    Oh, for crying out loud. I’ve been using Macs since 1988, but PCs since 1981, and computers since 1966. I’ve seen it all. Most of what you’re saying is pure drivel. Industries that mostly use Macs don’t use them because they’re overpriced, and marketed well. If you don’t understand that, then don’t bother to be in the conversation.

    [deleted]

    as far as taxes go. If it’s legal, then I hope a company is taking every advantage of that. The reality is that Apple did nothing illegal in Europe. Many European companies do exactly the same thing. So I say, change the laws. Companies will then be forced to follow them. But if the laws allow something, a company should do it. It’s not their responsibility to pay more taxes than they have to. It’s not like tipping in a restaurant. It’s like paying the bill itself.
    No, what's he saying up until the detour to taxes is accurate and factual, not opinion, except for one sentence ("shenanigans" was opinion). I'm OK with paying Apple's higher prices, for the most part - I own a 2018 MBP with top configuration. Except... it's not really the top config, it's got 1TB SSD instead of 4TB, because Apple's SSD prices are *nuts*. RAM prices too, but they're easier to stomach and harder to work around. No RAM on thunderbolt, after all. I also own a 2013 Air, and I was seriously unhappy when the SSD died and I couldn't source a replacement (that ebay connector board is fairly new). Didn't change my mind about the value of the Mac when I first bought it - I knew about the SSD connector then.

    I think Apple's making a mistake pricing their upgrades as high as they do - I think they'd grow their market, and improve cust sat rate, by dropping RAM prices some and SSD prices a LOT (given the cratering of SSD costs/prices in the last year). Oh, and get rid of the HD-only iMac option, that's seriously stupid. But in the end, you buy the package or you don't, and getting angry about it is silly. Either it's worth it or it's not, and that includes option prices and whatever standard or non-standard parts and ports are in the machine.

    As for taxes... That was a bizarre digression, and unrelated to the main topic. I like your restaurant analogy.
    Over the years, Apple HAS been dropping their RAM and drive prices closer to market.  But they can’t follow market pricing. Apple, and other large organizations, buy memory some time in advance, at fixed prices. If prices drop, or rise, they charge the same. After a year, or two, they get new pricing, and their prices reflect that. But they’re always a good year behind, because they have to wrap this up early to make sure they have the supply they need. It’s not like us buying from OWC, or from someone on eBay.
    Really? I've not noticed any downward trend in the past say, 10 years. Apple buys enough RAM that the overall market trends won't have much of an effect, they'll be paying at most half the price the average consumer can get it for, and most likely much less than that. What about the flash in iPhones? A 64GB flash chip is a couple of dollars. A 128GB one is about $5. And yet Apple charges $100 for the upgrade. You can guarantee that if market prices suddenly rose versus when Apple bought the RAM, they'd up their prices too. So why not when the prices fall?
    Well, it has, and it’s been commented upon. The price of a product at retail is between 2.5 to 3.5 the part cost. So if Apple pays $100 for memory, you will pay between $250 and $350. That’s standard markup. If they have to do something g extra to it, such as certify the system with it, the price will be higher. We’ve discussed manufacturing here as well, over the years.

    what are you expecting, that Apple charges you the same thing they pay? What company is that stupid?
    You've changed the numbers.  Using the numbers you're replying to:
    • The 64GB to 128GB storage upgrade cost was $5-$3=$2.  Hell, let's assume the small chip gets thrown away and take it as $5.
    • Applying your 3.5 multiplier makes $17.50.  
    • Apple charges $100.  
    Does it cost $82.50 extra to certify an iPhone with 128GB storage compared to what it cost to certify an iPhone with 64GB storage?  

    Your numbers and excuses are not adding up.  Apple makes a disproportionate profit off of upgrades.  There's nothing all that wrong with that, it's just a consumer gripe.  Why are you trying to worm out of it?
    elijahgcolinng
Sign In or Register to comment.