Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
Exactly. These minuscule SSDs are almost offensive.
Then it's a good thing for you two that this is neither the only nor largest capacity SSD available. Personally, I don't that much capacity on my portable Mac so I'm glad Apple doesn't force buyers to go for capacities they won't need. I take that back. Since I'm a 15" MBP user it does mean that I do have to get the 256 GB MBP at the entry level capacity when 128 GB would be more than enough for my portable needs. But instead of complaining about Apple is raping me or forcing me to do something against my will, I instead look at all vendor products, determine which fits my needs best, and then move on with my decision.
I must have somehow missed the words “raping” and “forcing” in @ireland’s and @SweeTango’s posts.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Exactly. Moreover, if the choice was between a TouchBar and 128GB extra storage, what do we think most people would choose?
IMHO — and yes, it’s only an opinion — this version of the MBP will be gone in a couple of years. A decade from now we’ll look back on it as the equivalent of the toilet-seat MB of its era. The best I can say about it is that it’s a mediocre product, I.e., not terrible.
Now, if Apple were to offer, say, the same amount of iCloud storage as that in your purchased product that would assuage things somewhat, but as it stands, it does not impress.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable? That's just silly.
Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise. But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.
I suspect that Apple is in the very beginnings of doing that rethinking with their Mac line. That's why, I believe, they are culling the MacBook line -- to make room for more practical and functional machines.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
Exactly. These minuscule SSDs are almost offensive.
Then it's a good thing for you two that this is neither the only nor largest capacity SSD available. Personally, I don't that much capacity on my portable Mac so I'm glad Apple doesn't force buyers to go for capacities they won't need. I take that back. Since I'm a 15" MBP user it does mean that I do have to get the 256 GB MBP at the entry level capacity when 128 GB would be more than enough for my portable needs. But instead of complaining about Apple is raping me or forcing me to do something against my will, I instead look at all vendor products, determine which fits my needs best, and then move on with my decision.
But if you have a long term investment in MacOS your options aren't really options at all.
What would be nice is an 'old style' Mac. Upgradeable RAM, SSD, removeable battery, no Touch Bar, scissor mechanism etc and let market forces decide who is 'forcing' who, because if such a machine were to prove a wild success (IMO it would) it would essentially mean that users are being forced to buy what they don't want. Just one model. That is all it would take.
Ehem, 'Courage'. Too much to ask?
In many ways the Mac Line has become everything Jobs objected to -- essentially the immutable IBM "Do it my way or no way" behemoth. True, the IBM PC was big, bulky and white while the MacBooks are thin, light and silver. But really they are simply pushing against the opposite wall and both are prisons.
Undoubtedly that "old Style" that you propose would have drawbacks -- mostly it would be thicker and heavier and less sleek than the current line-up. And for some that would be unacceptable. But others would welcome its increased functionality, durability, expandability, repairability, and upgreadeability.
I suspect that (or similar) is why Apple is cutting back on offering so many models in its Mac line: They were all essentially minor variations of the same theme. I know Macs fairly better than most, but in an Apple showroom I would have to ask a salesman which one I was looking at because I couldn't tell them apart.
I am looking forward to Apple introducing new innovative models -- even if some of them are "old style". I see one or more (or maybe some combination) of the following coming out in the next few years: -- An "old style" Mac with as you say "Upgradeable RAM, SSD, removeable battery, no Touch Bar, scissor mechanism" keyboard -- and more ports. -- An "A Series" processor model -- An iPad with a full external keyboard and a mouse / trackpad for use when needed.
Actually, what I think will drive it will be the iPad gaining external peripherals of quality keyboard, mouse/trackpad, external display and storage. That will take the place (for many) of the simple, easy to use, highly portable, thin, light, sleek MacBook -- which is why so many Mac loyalists fear it. That simple and highly portable yet functional device will push the MacBook line to become more the rugged, flexible, workhorse that can be repaired, upgraded and expanded as needed.
It's coming time when the MacBook line has to give up competing with the iPad line. So far, Apple has been supporting it by holding back on the possible functioning of the iPad. But, I'm not sure how much longer they will coddle their MacBook line and instead make it stand on its own.
That's definitely possible. There might be a time when Apple's portable lineup will consist of only iPad Pros (for mainstream users) and MBP (for high-end professional users)
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
Exactly. These minuscule SSDs are almost offensive.
Then it's a good thing for you two that this is neither the only nor largest capacity SSD available. Personally, I don't that much capacity on my portable Mac so I'm glad Apple doesn't force buyers to go for capacities they won't need. I take that back. Since I'm a 15" MBP user it does mean that I do have to get the 256 GB MBP at the entry level capacity when 128 GB would be more than enough for my portable needs. But instead of complaining about Apple is raping me or forcing me to do something against my will, I instead look at all vendor products, determine which fits my needs best, and then move on with my decision.
But if you have a long term investment in MacOS your options aren't really options at all.
What would be nice is an 'old style' Mac. Upgradeable RAM, SSD, removeable battery, no Touch Bar, scissor mechanism etc and let market forces decide who is 'forcing' who, because if such a machine were to prove a wild success (IMO it would) it would essentially mean that users are being forced to buy what they don't want. Just one model. That is all it would take.
Ehem, 'Courage'. Too much to ask?
Your thinking is so flawed it’s hot even funny. The market is already speaking — because these are the products Apple offers in a very healthy marketplace, and people buy them. Normals do not care about the things you pretend they do. The number of people who upgrade their machines are small. Techies are not normals. The attributes of what makes MacsBooks attractive are the things you want them to eliminate — sleek, lightweight appliance computing machines. Get a junky Dell if you want removable everything. Which you will since you wouldn’t even buy a MBP to begin with.
You’re confusing courage “But but but these are the things *I* want Apple to do!” Apple does what Apple wants to do, which the vast majority of normal people are fine with. There are alternatives for people like you.
Contrary to your assertion that making the memory and/or SSD removable would make it bulky and junky, other makers brands of compact laptops in the same class as the MacBook Pro have replaceable components. It’s not an either-or proposition.
The problem with talking about ‘the market’ with Macs is that it really isn’t an open market. In the PC world, you can pick between multiple manufactures and still get a windows machine. If you want MacOS, you’re stuck with Apple laptops. It’s not unlike the headphone jack. I’ve talked to many people who would prefer a standard 3.5mm jack and are annoyed at having to carry around an adapter but put up with it because they want to stay with an iPhone. As has been pointed out, we don’t really know what percentage of the MBPs are sold with the 128GB drive; it may very well be an intentionally undersized drive just to let them advertise a low starting price point - kind of like Tesla advertising the Model 3 for under $34k - technically true, but the version that the vast majority of people want is $50k,
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
Exactly. These minuscule SSDs are almost offensive.
Then it's a good thing for you two that this is neither the only nor largest capacity SSD available. Personally, I don't that much capacity on my portable Mac so I'm glad Apple doesn't force buyers to go for capacities they won't need. I take that back. Since I'm a 15" MBP user it does mean that I do have to get the 256 GB MBP at the entry level capacity when 128 GB would be more than enough for my portable needs. But instead of complaining about Apple is raping me or forcing me to do something against my will, I instead look at all vendor products, determine which fits my needs best, and then move on with my decision.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable? That's just silly.
That's not your business. This is the concern of those who know their priorities and decided to buy a Macbook. How do you claim that 128 GB SSD makes a laptop unusable? $1099 is not "premium". For that price you get the best value in an entry level machine, such as Retina, TrueTone, Thunderbolt 3, ultimate security with uncompromised fingerprint recognition and custom CPU. Show us another laptop with TWO CPUs, one totally dedicated to security and fast storage !..
If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise. But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.
Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.
I wonder if the T2 or another chips will know that you've replaced the NAND. If not, then you a nefarious outfit could replace NAND with there own containing a rootkit.
I believe that the SSD is encrypted with keys stored in the secure enclave on the T2 (whether or not you enable FileVault). Replacing the chips would mean that the new chips would contain a filesystem that's unusable by the computer until it's reformatted.
I really fail to understand people who complain about specs of the base model. Macbook has 1.5TB SSD and 16GB RAM if you need it. Not enough? A 15” gets you 32GB RAM and 4TB SSD. I bought a 2016 15” with 1TB storage cause 512GB would force me to use external disks and 2TB would be an unused expensive dead space. Now it totally fills my needs. What is the reason you cannot do the same?
Base model is for those who come to the shop and buy “one Apple laptop please”. The specs are completely adequate for them.
I really fail to understand people who complain about specs of the base model. Macbook has 1.5TB SSD and 16GB RAM if you need it. Not enough? A 15” gets you 32GB RAM and 4TB SSD. I bought a 2016 15” with 1TB storage cause 512GB would force me to use external disks and 2TB would be an unused expensive dead space. Now it totally fills my needs. What is the reason you cannot do the same?
Base model is for those who come to the shop and buy “one Apple laptop please”. The specs are completely adequate for them.
Dell sold their XPS13 at 830 with 4GiB, i3-U and 128GB storage.
Didn’t stop those analysts to praise its “functionality, durability, expandability, repairability, and upgreadeability.”
My wife uses a 2014 Air for writing 2-page Word documents, uploading photos to Facebook and showing cartoons to our daughter. The important things are low weight, good battery life and ability to close laptop any time then open it later and continue working, well also a durable metal frame - nothing to do with the specs. And all the wifes/girlfriends of my friends are the same, like still using 10-years old laptops. I thing you are overestimating the performance needs of non-technical people. Nothing wrong for the companies to have a base model $500 cheaper by using i3 and 4GB RAM.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable? That's just silly.
That's not your business. This is the concern of those who know their priorities and decided to buy a Macbook. How do you claim that 128 GB SSD makes a laptop unusable? $1099 is not "premium". For that price you get the best value in an entry level machine, such as Retina, TrueTone, Thunderbolt 3, ultimate security with uncompromised fingerprint recognition and custom CPU. Show us another laptop with TWO CPUs, one totally dedicated to security and fast storage !..
If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise. But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.
Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.
Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design.
It wouldn't be bad if, when the user fills that up, he could take it back to Apple and have it upgraded (at a reasonable cost). But that's impossible -- so the laptop becomes worthless.
And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be.
And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy.
Somebody else said it best: Apple is just pulling a "Bait and Switch" here with a low base price -- because when the customer gets to the Apple store he'll be told to cough up more cash to get a decent machine.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable? That's just silly.
That's not your business. This is the concern of those who know their priorities and decided to buy a Macbook. How do you claim that 128 GB SSD makes a laptop unusable? $1099 is not "premium". For that price you get the best value in an entry level machine, such as Retina, TrueTone, Thunderbolt 3, ultimate security with uncompromised fingerprint recognition and custom CPU. Show us another laptop with TWO CPUs, one totally dedicated to security and fast storage !..
If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise. But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.
Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.
Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design.
It wouldn't be bad if, when the user fills that up, he could take it back to Apple and have it upgraded (at a reasonable cost). But that's impossible -- so the laptop becomes worthless.
And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be.
And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy.
Somebody else said it best: Apple is just pulling a "Bait and Switch" here with a low base price -- because when the customer gets to the Apple store he'll be told to cough up more cash to get a decent machine.
"Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design."
The industry moved on from 128 GB over a decade ago but on 2.5" HDDs, not on SSDs. Do you know what a SSD is?
"And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be."
What? What are you drinking right now? What "similar specs"? Double concurrent CPU? Retina resolution? Unbreakable Touch ID? Apple Pay? Thunderbolt 3? 4K displays? Stop insisting so much on your unelaborated and compulsive ideas, you become more and more meaningless...
"And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy."
Your users will tell the difference when their BestBuy bought crappy Chinese knockoff SSD wears completely at the end of a few years usage. SSDs are not durable like hard disks, they get eroded after an undisclosed number of read/writes.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable? That's just silly.
That's not your business. This is the concern of those who know their priorities and decided to buy a Macbook. How do you claim that 128 GB SSD makes a laptop unusable? $1099 is not "premium". For that price you get the best value in an entry level machine, such as Retina, TrueTone, Thunderbolt 3, ultimate security with uncompromised fingerprint recognition and custom CPU. Show us another laptop with TWO CPUs, one totally dedicated to security and fast storage !..
If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise. But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.
Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.
Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design.
It wouldn't be bad if, when the user fills that up, he could take it back to Apple and have it upgraded (at a reasonable cost). But that's impossible -- so the laptop becomes worthless.
And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be.
And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy.
Somebody else said it best: Apple is just pulling a "Bait and Switch" here with a low base price -- because when the customer gets to the Apple store he'll be told to cough up more cash to get a decent machine.
"Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design."
The industry moved on from 128 GB over a decade ago but on 2.5" HDDs, not on SSDs. Do you know what a SSD is?
"And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be."
What? What are you drinking right now? What "similar specs"? Double concurrent CPU? Retina resolution? Unbreakable Touch ID? Apple Pay? Thunderbolt 3? 4K displays? Stop insisting so much on your unelaborated and compulsive ideas, you become more and more meaningless...
"And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy."
Your users will tell the difference when they BestBuy bought crappy Chinese knockoff SSD wears completely at the end of a few years usage. SSDs are not durable like hard disks, they get eroded after an undisclosed number of read/writes.
All the more reason to make the SSD replaceable. Taking a component that's expected to wear out and not making it replaceable seems almost like planned obsolescence.
As for the cost, I just went to Crucial.com. A 1TB SSD is $100-110. A 1TB upgrade for the Macbook is $600. I don't know who makes the SSD's for Apple, but Crucial isn't generally considered a second rate company; I've purchased many memory upgrades from them in the past and never had an issue.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable? That's just silly.
That's not your business. This is the concern of those who know their priorities and decided to buy a Macbook. How do you claim that 128 GB SSD makes a laptop unusable? $1099 is not "premium". For that price you get the best value in an entry level machine, such as Retina, TrueTone, Thunderbolt 3, ultimate security with uncompromised fingerprint recognition and custom CPU. Show us another laptop with TWO CPUs, one totally dedicated to security and fast storage !..
If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise. But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.
Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.
Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design.
It wouldn't be bad if, when the user fills that up, he could take it back to Apple and have it upgraded (at a reasonable cost). But that's impossible -- so the laptop becomes worthless.
And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be.
And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy.
Somebody else said it best: Apple is just pulling a "Bait and Switch" here with a low base price -- because when the customer gets to the Apple store he'll be told to cough up more cash to get a decent machine.
"Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design."
The industry moved on from 128 GB over a decade ago but on 2.5" HDDs, not on SSDs. Do you know what a SSD is?
"And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be."
What? What are you drinking right now? What "similar specs"? Double concurrent CPU? Retina resolution? Unbreakable Touch ID? Apple Pay? Thunderbolt 3? 4K displays? Stop insisting so much on your unelaborated and compulsive ideas, you become more and more meaningless...
"And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy."
Your users will tell the difference when they BestBuy bought crappy Chinese knockoff SSD wears completely at the end of a few years usage. SSDs are not durable like hard disks, they get eroded after an undisclosed number of read/writes.
All the more reason to make the SSD replaceable. Taking a component that's expected to wear out and not making it replaceable seems almost like planned obsolescence.
As for the cost, I just went to Crucial.com. A 1TB SSD is $100-110. A 1TB upgrade for the Macbook is $600. I don't know who makes the SSD's for Apple, but Crucial isn't generally considered a second rate company; I've purchased many memory upgrades from them in the past and never had an issue.
The replacement will be done by Apple in this case and the performance boost I get today will justify a replacement fee in the future. I cannot compromise today’s performance just for few bucks cheaper DIY replacement in the future. Besides, such a DIY replacement may not even be possible because of the custom SSD controller bound to T2 chip. The benefits of T2 parallel CPU justifies largely that $600.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable? That's just silly.
That's not your business. This is the concern of those who know their priorities and decided to buy a Macbook. How do you claim that 128 GB SSD makes a laptop unusable? $1099 is not "premium". For that price you get the best value in an entry level machine, such as Retina, TrueTone, Thunderbolt 3, ultimate security with uncompromised fingerprint recognition and custom CPU. Show us another laptop with TWO CPUs, one totally dedicated to security and fast storage !..
If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise. But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.
Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.
Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design.
It wouldn't be bad if, when the user fills that up, he could take it back to Apple and have it upgraded (at a reasonable cost). But that's impossible -- so the laptop becomes worthless.
And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be.
And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy.
Somebody else said it best: Apple is just pulling a "Bait and Switch" here with a low base price -- because when the customer gets to the Apple store he'll be told to cough up more cash to get a decent machine.
"Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design."
The industry moved on from 128 GB over a decade ago but on 2.5" HDDs, not on SSDs. Do you know what a SSD is?
"And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be."
What? What are you drinking right now? What "similar specs"? Double concurrent CPU? Retina resolution? Unbreakable Touch ID? Apple Pay? Thunderbolt 3? 4K displays? Stop insisting so much on your unelaborated and compulsive ideas, you become more and more meaningless...
"And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy."
Your users will tell the difference when they BestBuy bought crappy Chinese knockoff SSD wears completely at the end of a few years usage. SSDs are not durable like hard disks, they get eroded after an undisclosed number of read/writes.
All the more reason to make the SSD replaceable. Taking a component that's expected to wear out and not making it replaceable seems almost like planned obsolescence.
As for the cost, I just went to Crucial.com. A 1TB SSD is $100-110. A 1TB upgrade for the Macbook is $600. I don't know who makes the SSD's for Apple, but Crucial isn't generally considered a second rate company; I've purchased many memory upgrades from them in the past and never had an issue.
The replacement will be done by Apple in this case and the performance boost I get today will justify a replacement fee in the future. I cannot compromise today’s performance just for few bucks cheaper DIY replacement in the future. Besides, such a DIY replacement may not even be possible because of the custom SSD controller bound to T2 chip. The benefits of T2 parallel CPU justifies largely that $600.
I wonder if Apple locks the entry storage in x2 lanes.
With the discontinuation of the 12” Retina Macbook and F-key MBP, there is no longer any Apple laptop without the T2 chip. That means, all storage in Apple mobile devices with macOS or iOS is encrypted by default.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Why would you buy a premium priced laptop then have to buy external storage in order to make it useable? That's just silly.
That's not your business. This is the concern of those who know their priorities and decided to buy a Macbook. How do you claim that 128 GB SSD makes a laptop unusable? $1099 is not "premium". For that price you get the best value in an entry level machine, such as Retina, TrueTone, Thunderbolt 3, ultimate security with uncompromised fingerprint recognition and custom CPU. Show us another laptop with TWO CPUs, one totally dedicated to security and fast storage !..
If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.
Seeing as 128 GB isn’t big enough for most people, this computer is no bang for your buck.
128GB is perfectly fine for the vast majority of normal users. Start thinking outside that techie spec box you live in. Most people don’t have a 100,000 song music library. Most don’t have 50GB of archived emails and 100GB photo libraries. Most don’t use FCP or Photoshop or hoard hundreds of purchased/pirated/ripped movies. I am in that “most” camp and 128GB of storage would be adequate. Then there’s the external storage option.
It hasn't been adequate for me since the 90's. I would only consider it if I planned on using the laptop in Chromebook mode with data stored in the cloud instead of locally. But, If I'm doing that, then why not buy a Chromebook?
Why would you store data in the cloud? External storage is the cheapest solution, even cheaper than the cloud. It is not that difficult to manage storage between internal, external and the cloud. If storage space is your primary concern, then buy the entry level iMac with 1 TB HDD. A laptop is a bunch of comromises, not everyone needs a laptop. When I defended 1 TB HDD with the argument of partitioning for BootCamp, people reacted by stating that 128 is quite adequate for BootCamp partition too. Now they react with an opposite argument. LOLs and LOLs.
Yes, every computer, from an Apple Watch to a MacPro, involves compromise. But a manufacturer who forces those comprises unnecessarily onto its customers needs to rethink their design philosophy -- and putting out devices with inadequate, non-replaceable storage with no discernible benefit to its customers fits that bill.
Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.
Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design.
It wouldn't be bad if, when the user fills that up, he could take it back to Apple and have it upgraded (at a reasonable cost). But that's impossible -- so the laptop becomes worthless.
And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be.
And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy.
Somebody else said it best: Apple is just pulling a "Bait and Switch" here with a low base price -- because when the customer gets to the Apple store he'll be told to cough up more cash to get a decent machine.
"Sorry, but trying to justify 128Gb of storage as adequate when the industry moved on from there over a decade ago makes no sense -- it's just apologizing for a bad design."
The industry moved on from 128 GB over a decade ago but on 2.5" HDDs, not on SSDs. Do you know what a SSD is?
"And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be."
What? What are you drinking right now? What "similar specs"? Double concurrent CPU? Retina resolution? Unbreakable Touch ID? Apple Pay? Thunderbolt 3? 4K displays? Stop insisting so much on your unelaborated and compulsive ideas, you become more and more meaningless...
"And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy."
Your users will tell the difference when they BestBuy bought crappy Chinese knockoff SSD wears completely at the end of a few years usage. SSDs are not durable like hard disks, they get eroded after an undisclosed number of read/writes.
All the more reason to make the SSD replaceable. Taking a component that's expected to wear out and not making it replaceable seems almost like planned obsolescence.
As for the cost, I just went to Crucial.com. A 1TB SSD is $100-110. A 1TB upgrade for the Macbook is $600. I don't know who makes the SSD's for Apple, but Crucial isn't generally considered a second rate company; I've purchased many memory upgrades from them in the past and never had an issue.
The replacement will be done by Apple in this case and the performance boost I get today will justify a replacement fee in the future. I cannot compromise today’s performance just for few bucks cheaper DIY replacement in the future. Besides, such a DIY replacement may not even be possible because of the custom SSD controller bound to T2 chip. The benefits of T2 parallel CPU justifies largely that $600.
You talk in circles.... You argue that Apple is justified in putting inadequate, non-replaceable SSDs in their laptops then you say Apple will replace them!
And, sorry, but to your prior point: Yes, the industry DID move on from 128Gb storage long ago. It had a brief period where it was using 128Gb SSDs back when SSDs were expensive. But now the difference between a 128Gb and 256GB is about $20 -- NOT $200 as Apple charges. That makes putting a NON-REPLACEABLE 128Gb SSD in a premium laptop just a bait & switch on Apple's part.
It explains also the structure of Apple SSDs. The SSD controller is in the T2 chip that sits between the Intel CPU and the NAND storage. Such a configuration is not sold on Amazon, and obviously there is no way to DIY “replace the SSD”...
Comments
/eyeroll
IMHO — and yes, it’s only an opinion — this version of the MBP will be gone in a couple of years. A decade from now we’ll look back on it as the equivalent of the toilet-seat MB of its era. The best I can say about it is that it’s a mediocre product, I.e., not terrible.
Now, if Apple were to offer, say, the same amount of iCloud storage as that in your purchased product that would assuage things somewhat, but as it stands, it does not impress.
The problem with talking about ‘the market’ with Macs is that it really isn’t an open market. In the PC world, you can pick between multiple manufactures and still get a windows machine. If you want MacOS, you’re stuck with Apple laptops. It’s not unlike the headphone jack. I’ve talked to many people who would prefer a standard 3.5mm jack and are annoyed at having to carry around an adapter but put up with it because they want to stay with an iPhone. As has been pointed out, we don’t really know what percentage of the MBPs are sold with the 128GB drive; it may very well be an intentionally undersized drive just to let them advertise a low starting price point - kind of like Tesla advertising the Model 3 for under $34k - technically true, but the version that the vast majority of people want is $50k,
If you look for less, get an iPad for half that price.
Apple doesn't force those compromises onto its customers since it offers a variety of upgrade options to override those compromises. Those who want the least compromise will just pay and get an upgrade. You want Apple give you extra 128 GB for free. That doesn't happen in today's circumstances, it costs $200 so you just take it or leave it. The discernible benefit of that non-upgradable storage is Apple quality: the most secure, the fastest and the most durable SSD. If you are qualified enough to assemble better SSDs then just do so, but not on a Macbook, buy a plastic case PC laptop.
Didn’t stop those analysts to praise its “functionality, durability, expandability, repairability, and upgreadeability.”
I thing you are overestimating the performance needs of non-technical people. Nothing wrong for the companies to have a base model $500 cheaper by using i3 and 4GB RAM.
It wouldn't be bad if, when the user fills that up, he could take it back to Apple and have it upgraded (at a reasonable cost). But that's impossible -- so the laptop becomes worthless.
And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be.
Somebody else said it best: Apple is just pulling a "Bait and Switch" here with a low base price -- because when the customer gets to the Apple store he'll be told to cough up more cash to get a decent machine.
The industry moved on from 128 GB over a decade ago but on 2.5" HDDs, not on SSDs. Do you know what a SSD is?
"And, any laptop that costs double what another laptop of similar specs would cost is "premium" -- or should be."
What? What are you drinking right now? What "similar specs"? Double concurrent CPU? Retina resolution? Unbreakable Touch ID? Apple Pay? Thunderbolt 3? 4K displays? Stop insisting so much on your unelaborated and compulsive ideas, you become more and more meaningless...
"And, trying to justify Apple's storage game by saying it provides higher quality doesn't fly because few, if any, users would be able to tell the difference between it and something bought at BestBuy."
Your users will tell the difference when their BestBuy bought crappy Chinese knockoff SSD wears completely at the end of a few years usage. SSDs are not durable like hard disks, they get eroded after an undisclosed number of read/writes.
As for the cost, I just went to Crucial.com. A 1TB SSD is $100-110. A 1TB upgrade for the Macbook is $600. I don't know who makes the SSD's for Apple, but Crucial isn't generally considered a second rate company; I've purchased many memory upgrades from them in the past and never had an issue.
And, sorry, but to your prior point: Yes, the industry DID move on from 128Gb storage long ago. It had a brief period where it was using 128Gb SSDs back when SSDs were expensive. But now the difference between a 128Gb and 256GB is about $20 -- NOT $200 as Apple charges. That makes putting a NON-REPLACEABLE 128Gb SSD in a premium laptop just a bait & switch on Apple's part.
https://www.apple.com/mac/docs/Apple_T2_Security_Chip_Overview.pdf
It explains also the structure of Apple SSDs. The SSD controller is in the T2 chip that sits between the Intel CPU and the NAND storage. Such a configuration is not sold on Amazon, and obviously there is no way to DIY “replace the SSD”...