No changes to low tiers! Most importantly, it still costs the insulting figure of $200 to upgrade from 128 GB to 256 GB! That's $1600/TB! High-end SSDs cost $170-300/TB (for drives that are even faster than Apple's).
Right? And it's under 3lb? Do you know much I can get back from recycling 3lb of aluminium cans? Apple is literally raping us.
You’re not honestly suggesting there’s ANY kind of justification for the price Apple charges for storage, are you? It’s ludicrous.
No changes to low tiers! Most importantly, it still costs the insulting figure of $200 to upgrade from 128 GB to 256 GB! That's $1600/TB! High-end SSDs cost $170-300/TB (for drives that are even faster than Apple's).
Right? And it's under 3lb? Do you know much I can get back from recycling 3lb of aluminium cans? Apple is literally raping us.
You’re not honestly suggesting there’s ANY kind of justification for the price Apple charges for storage, are you? It’s ludicrous.
There are absolutely justification for their prices. and on multiple different levels at that.
For starters, to claim that some no-name retailer of some 3rd-party NAND has the same overhead as Apple when it comes to warranting a whole device solution is ridiculous. For example, I've bought plenty of 3rd-party RAM and storage over the decades for Macs. When they have been bad I have had to troubleshoot that problem myself, then contact the retailer or the manufacturer—depending on how long its been since purchase—to go though their (often) grueling customer service website and/or calling center to start an RMA. Then I may have no Mac for the time that it takes to pack up and send in my bad HW that I diagnosed and then have to wait for them verify the problem exists before resolving or sending me a replacement. They will ship back on their dime but I'm still on the hook for sending it to them even though I'm under warranty. For me, this usually is worth the risk of the small financial benefit and I love to tinker but how is this a feasible avenue for the average user that refers to parts of their device as the whatchamacallit and thingamajig?
Another clear reason for their storage costs is that it's a common demarcation for how they tier their devices, especially their iDevices. You see some standalone prices for NAND and then assume that the price should ridiculously small price jump without any consideration as to why they are scaling their devices the way they do. Using Pylon's numbers, going from 128 GB to 256 GB for $170 per TB which is 17c per GB would mean that Apple shouldn't charge more than $21.76 for the next tier up.
Finally, you need to look at the product category as a whole. That's where the investment resides and why they commonly scale using storage. You see the cheapest device for sale and think that you're already paying enough so that Apple should charge me fore more NAND at cost, but you never look at the most expensive one for sale and then consider what you could save by removing the NAND at cost or how this would completely mess up their unit sales and affect very balanced NAND availability if getting the lowest and highest priced device based on the few options you have were based solely on cost. The only way this would work would be to rise the initial price of the device to cover for the loss you people are indicating with your comments, and by work, I mean for Apple to maintain their profit margin per device but since this could completely mess up production availability due to how storage would be spaced while also reducing reducing unit sales and likely reducing revenue this would be a very bad move.
If and when we see Apple failing at figuring out their equilibrium price and having warehouses of unsold product we can start to look at legitimate concerns for Apple charging customers more than the market is willing to bear.
The bottom line is if one truly feels that a vendor's prices are too high then one should shop elsewhere.
Soli said: There are absolutely justification for their prices. and on multiple different levels at that.
For starters, [...]
I’m well aware of the arguments you present. Even if we accept them at face value, I find it difficult to imagine service overhead costing as much as Apple is charging for storage.
I’m not suggesting that Apple’s storage upgrades should cost the same as a discount parts vendor. I’m saying they should not cost double or triple that amount. What Apple is charging goes well beyond reasonable business practice. It’s gouging.
As for product demarcation, what you wrote is a very dignified description of “bait-and-switch.”
Soli said: The bottom line is if one truly feels that a vendor's prices are too high then one should shop elsewhere.
Yup, and I’m practicing a version of that now. I’m simply refusing to buy any new Apple products until prices come down, and occasionally letting Apple know that via the feedback page.
i haven’t yet looked into how today’s announcement of SSD price reductions affect products I’m interested in buying, but it’s great news. Hopefully the reductions are substantial enough to make the total cost of configuring a machine with more than the bare minimum reasonable.
Yay! My condolences to the complainer contingent, one less thing to complain about. Though they are quite the resourceful bunch, I'm sure something else will be tapped to fill the gap soon.
Riiight, because the point is to focus on the people who made valid complaints, not on the company that has just addressed one of those, per this article...
See, didn’t take long at all. I knew you guys had this one covered!
This is G O O D ! With Apple soldering storage to the motherboard making it non-upgradeable, they are forcing users to predict their storage needs over the life of the machine -- and even experts cannot do that accurately (project 5+ years out). The best to do that has always been to buy more than what you think you will need. But, with goosed up SSD prices, that became prohibitively expensive leaving Apple users in a bind.
Bringing SSD prices into line makes it a lot easier to buy a Mac with non-replaceable, non-upgradeable storage.
Yay! My condolences to the complainer contingent, one less thing to complain about. Though they are quite the resourceful bunch, I'm sure something else will be tapped to fill the gap soon.
There is a difference between legitimate complaints and whining because you hate Apple. I’ve yet to see a good reason expressed for Apples former high prices on SSD storage.
Yay! My condolences to the complainer contingent, one less thing to complain about. Though they are quite the resourceful bunch, I'm sure something else will be tapped to fill the gap soon.
Riiight, because the point is to focus on the people who made valid complaints, not on the company that has just addressed one of those, per this article...
See, didn’t take long at all. I knew you guys had this one covered!
No changes to low tiers! Most importantly, it still costs the insulting figure of $200 to upgrade from 128 GB to 256 GB! That's $1600/TB! High-end SSDs cost $170-300/TB (for drives that are even faster than Apple's).
[Citation needed] on that last part. Apple's drives perform exceptionally well for flash-based SSDs. Optane performs better, but is around $1150 per TB ($549 for a 480 GB 900p, $1130 for a 960 GB 905p).
Yay! My condolences to the complainer contingent, one less thing to complain about. Though they are quite the resourceful bunch, I'm sure something else will be tapped to fill the gap soon.
Riiight, because the point is to focus on the people who made valid complaints, not on the company that has just addressed one of those, per this article...
See, didn’t take long at all. I knew you guys had this one covered!
Nope just rejecting ignorant behavior.
Remember, I called it a contingent? The whole gang is back together now. Hi guys
Soli said: There are absolutely justification for their prices. and on multiple different levels at that.
For starters, [...]
I’m well aware of the arguments you present. Even if we accept them at face value, I find it difficult to imagine service overhead costing as much as Apple is charging for storage.
I’m not suggesting that Apple’s storage upgrades should cost the same as a discount parts vendor. I’m saying they should not cost double or triple that amount. What Apple is charging goes well beyond reasonable business practice. It’s gouging.
As for product demarcation, what you wrote is a very dignified description of “bait-and-switch.”
Soli said: The bottom line is if one truly feels that a vendor's prices are too high then one should shop elsewhere.
Yup, and I’m practicing a version of that now. I’m simply refusing to buy any new Apple products until prices come down, and occasionally letting Apple know that via the feedback page.
i haven’t yet looked into how today’s announcement of SSD price reductions affect products I’m interested in buying, but it’s great news. Hopefully the reductions are substantial enough to make the total cost of configuring a machine with more than the bare minimum reasonable.
If you truly feel that Apple is committing fraud then I implore you to file a grievance and seek legal action, but for your claim of bait-and-switch to be authentic you’ll have to prove that lower-end options are being advertised with foreknowledge that they will not be available for sale. But I can’t say I’ve ever seen that. When you go onto their website or into their store those entry-level models seem to be the most available with the complex BTO options taking the longest to ship or having a much spottier availability in stores.
Why is a 1TB upgrade on a MacBook Air $400 yet $500 on an iMac? As I assume the iMac incorporates more widely available DIMMs than the soldered to the motherboard memory I assume the Air uses? Anyway, these Apple upgrades are still too bloody expensive. As 1TB should be the standard supplied minimum nowadays, not a pretty much useless 128/256 GBs that they currently offer.
Soli said: There are absolutely justification for their prices. and on multiple different levels at that.
For starters, [...]
I’m well aware of the arguments you present. Even if we accept them at face value, I find it difficult to imagine service overhead costing as much as Apple is charging for storage.
I’m not suggesting that Apple’s storage upgrades should cost the same as a discount parts vendor. I’m saying they should not cost double or triple that amount. What Apple is charging goes well beyond reasonable business practice. It’s gouging.
As for product demarcation, what you wrote is a very dignified description of “bait-and-switch.”
Soli said: The bottom line is if one truly feels that a vendor's prices are too high then one should shop elsewhere.
Yup, and I’m practicing a version of that now. I’m simply refusing to buy any new Apple products until prices come down, and occasionally letting Apple know that via the feedback page.
i haven’t yet looked into how today’s announcement of SSD price reductions affect products I’m interested in buying, but it’s great news. Hopefully the reductions are substantial enough to make the total cost of configuring a machine with more than the bare minimum reasonable.
If you truly feel that Apple is committing fraud then I implore you to file a grievance and seek legal action, but for your claim of bait-and-switch to be authentic you’ll have to prove that lower-end options are being advertised with foreknowledge that they will not be available for sale. But I can’t say I’ve ever seen that. When you go onto their website or into their store those entry-level models seem to be the most available with the complex BTO options taking the longest to ship or having a much spottier availability in stores.
You’re right, my “bait-and-switch” remark was not an accurate description of the situation. I take it back.
The bottom line for me: I think Apple’s prices for RAM and SSD upgrades are too high so I’ve not replaced computers I would have if those prices were within roughly 150% of street prices.
Perhaps if repairing a keyboard didn’t incur the cost replacing almost half a computer Apple could afford to lower prices for BTO upgrades... (is there an emoticon for “tongue in cheek?”)
Soli said: There are absolutely justification for their prices. and on multiple different levels at that.
For starters, [...]
I’m well aware of the arguments you present. Even if we accept them at face value, I find it difficult to imagine service overhead costing as much as Apple is charging for storage.
I’m not suggesting that Apple’s storage upgrades should cost the same as a discount parts vendor. I’m saying they should not cost double or triple that amount. What Apple is charging goes well beyond reasonable business practice. It’s gouging.
As for product demarcation, what you wrote is a very dignified description of “bait-and-switch.”
Soli said: The bottom line is if one truly feels that a vendor's prices are too high then one should shop elsewhere.
Yup, and I’m practicing a version of that now. I’m simply refusing to buy any new Apple products until prices come down, and occasionally letting Apple know that via the feedback page.
i haven’t yet looked into how today’s announcement of SSD price reductions affect products I’m interested in buying, but it’s great news. Hopefully the reductions are substantial enough to make the total cost of configuring a machine with more than the bare minimum reasonable.
If you truly feel that Apple is committing fraud then I implore you to file a grievance and seek legal action, but for your claim of bait-and-switch to be authentic you’ll have to prove that lower-end options are being advertised with foreknowledge that they will not be available for sale. But I can’t say I’ve ever seen that. When you go onto their website or into their store those entry-level models seem to be the most available with the complex BTO options taking the longest to ship or having a much spottier availability in stores.
The bottom line for me: I think Apple’s prices for RAM and SSD upgrades are too high so I’ve not replaced computers I would have if those prices were within roughly 150% of street prices.
Perhaps if repairing a keyboard didn’t incur the cost replacing almost half a computer Apple could afford to lower prices for BTO upgrades... (is there an emoticon for “tongue in cheek?”)
Sometimes I've seen it inline or less expensive than other PC makers, but usually it does seem to be more expensive. While I'd rather it be less expensive, I also don't care that much as I do very little to no HW tinkering on my Macs. I just buy with the maximum amount of RAM (I think that my current MBP only had a soldered 16 GiB option so the decision was made for me).
Anecdote: Close to 2 decades ago I installed a point update on my 12" PowerBook. Then my system started having wonky issues that were escalating in severity. I reinstalled the OS and read the console logs trying to figure out the problem. Since it happened right after a point update to macOS I figured it had to be OS related. Since it was still under warranty I called Apple, they shipped me out a box overnight, I sent it to them, and then 2 days later it came back in the mail overnight—all on their dime—with my 3rd-party RAM removed, new OEM RAM that matched my original purchase installed (I didn't supply them this RAM), and the OS installed with a printed note saying that it was a 3rd-party RAM issue. I should've checked RAM, but for this anecdote my point is how much that cost Apple for me having used 3rd-party RAM under their warranty. I don't recall ever trying to get the 3rd-party RAM replaced so I can't say whether I did or not.
Comments
For starters, to claim that some no-name retailer of some 3rd-party NAND has the same overhead as Apple when it comes to warranting a whole device solution is ridiculous. For example, I've bought plenty of 3rd-party RAM and storage over the decades for Macs. When they have been bad I have had to troubleshoot that problem myself, then contact the retailer or the manufacturer—depending on how long its been since purchase—to go though their (often) grueling customer service website and/or calling center to start an RMA. Then I may have no Mac for the time that it takes to pack up and send in my bad HW that I diagnosed and then have to wait for them verify the problem exists before resolving or sending me a replacement. They will ship back on their dime but I'm still on the hook for sending it to them even though I'm under warranty. For me, this usually is worth the risk of the small financial benefit and I love to tinker but how is this a feasible avenue for the average user that refers to parts of their device as the whatchamacallit and thingamajig?
Another clear reason for their storage costs is that it's a common demarcation for how they tier their devices, especially their iDevices. You see some standalone prices for NAND and then assume that the price should ridiculously small price jump without any consideration as to why they are scaling their devices the way they do. Using Pylon's numbers, going from 128 GB to 256 GB for $170 per TB which is 17c per GB would mean that Apple shouldn't charge more than $21.76 for the next tier up.
Finally, you need to look at the product category as a whole. That's where the investment resides and why they commonly scale using storage. You see the cheapest device for sale and think that you're already paying enough so that Apple should charge me fore more NAND at cost, but you never look at the most expensive one for sale and then consider what you could save by removing the NAND at cost or how this would completely mess up their unit sales and affect very balanced NAND availability if getting the lowest and highest priced device based on the few options you have were based solely on cost. The only way this would work would be to rise the initial price of the device to cover for the loss you people are indicating with your comments, and by work, I mean for Apple to maintain their profit margin per device but since this could completely mess up production availability due to how storage would be spaced while also reducing reducing unit sales and likely reducing revenue this would be a very bad move.
If and when we see Apple failing at figuring out their equilibrium price and having warehouses of unsold product we can start to look at legitimate concerns for Apple charging customers more than the market is willing to bear.
The bottom line is if one truly feels that a vendor's prices are too high then one should shop elsewhere.
I’m not suggesting that Apple’s storage upgrades should cost the same as a discount parts vendor. I’m saying they should not cost double or triple that amount. What Apple is charging goes well beyond reasonable business practice. It’s gouging.
As for product demarcation, what you wrote is a very dignified description of “bait-and-switch.”
Yup, and I’m practicing a version of that now. I’m simply refusing to buy any new Apple products until prices come down, and occasionally letting Apple know that via the feedback page.
i haven’t yet looked into how today’s announcement of SSD price reductions affect products I’m interested in buying, but it’s great news. Hopefully the reductions are substantial enough to make the total cost of configuring a machine with more than the bare minimum reasonable.
With Apple soldering storage to the motherboard making it non-upgradeable, they are forcing users to predict their storage needs over the life of the machine -- and even experts cannot do that accurately (project 5+ years out). The best to do that has always been to buy more than what you think you will need. But, with goosed up SSD prices, that became prohibitively expensive leaving Apple users in a bind.
Bringing SSD prices into line makes it a lot easier to buy a Mac with non-replaceable, non-upgradeable storage.
The bottom line for me: I think Apple’s prices for RAM and SSD upgrades are too high so I’ve not replaced computers I would have if those prices were within roughly 150% of street prices.
Perhaps if repairing a keyboard didn’t incur the cost replacing almost half a computer Apple could afford to lower prices for BTO upgrades... (is there an emoticon for “tongue in cheek?”)
Anecdote: Close to 2 decades ago I installed a point update on my 12" PowerBook. Then my system started having wonky issues that were escalating in severity. I reinstalled the OS and read the console logs trying to figure out the problem. Since it happened right after a point update to macOS I figured it had to be OS related. Since it was still under warranty I called Apple, they shipped me out a box overnight, I sent it to them, and then 2 days later it came back in the mail overnight—all on their dime—with my 3rd-party RAM removed, new OEM RAM that matched my original purchase installed (I didn't supply them this RAM), and the OS installed with a printed note saying that it was a 3rd-party RAM issue. I should've checked RAM, but for this anecdote my point is how much that cost Apple for me having used 3rd-party RAM under their warranty. I don't recall ever trying to get the 3rd-party RAM replaced so I can't say whether I did or not.