Apple's 'M2' processor enters mass production for MacBook Pro

145791015

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,894member
    nht said:
    elijahg said:

    Your business is one data point, the business I worked at had about 200 Macs and we would buy the base config. I personally upgraded the RAM in each machine, saving around $150 on Apple's prices. It took about 5 minutes per Mac, and about $400 of my time to do so for all 200 Macs. 
    Lol.  You updated 200 Macs in 16 hours.  Right.

    And your billable rate is $25 an hour.  Mkay.
    Doesn't seem unreasonable as a rough estimate?  Swapping iMac RAM is pretty easy.  I don't imagine he did all the iMacs in a single 16 hour stretch, they'd be spread out.  And $25/hour isn't crazy either.

    Where's the value in disbelieving him?
    GeorgeBMacelijahg
  • Reply 122 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,496member
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.
    elijahg
  • Reply 123 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,496member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.

    we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.

    increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.

    there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.

    I agree.   a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
    But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence.  And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
    I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.

    mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.

    so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.

    It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

    Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.
    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 124 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,496member
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 
    There are plenty of repairs you can make yourself on a modern automobile.

    Yeh, I just recharged the air conditioner and gave mine a tune-up.  Conversely, my mechanic just replaced a ball joint in it.   21 years old and running like it was new.
  • Reply 125 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,496member
    nht said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Nah. Expecting to be able to upgrade a laptop is as stupid as expecting to upgrade a tablet. I'm a hardcore tech nerd software dev, and have never upgraded anything other than RAM on a notebook. And now I just get what I need upfront. I have never, ever upgraded the storage or (lol) processor. That may be some DIY hobby thing you're into, but 99.9% of Apple's market doesn't do it. They aren't going to make compromises for the .1%, get real.

    It's appliance computing. Don't like it? Get a Dell.

    Andrew disagrees.
    Maybe let Andrew speak for himself.

    He did.  He disagrees with the "just throw it away and buy a new one" crowd.
    elijahg
  • Reply 126 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,496member
    elijahg said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    How often do you service or upgrade your iPad? Your iPhone? Your Apple TV? Your Watch? Your TV set? etc... Yet these are clearly better products than the more-easily serviceable early-computing counter-parts, right? Side note, my grandad used to repair his vacuum-tube tele, but I have never done this nor will I. My solid-state flat panel TV lasts way longer, and by the time it fails, it won't be cost effective to try to repair its electronics. I'll dispose of it properly and get whatever newer tech is out.

    You apparently don't understand the goals of appliance computing, after all these decades. That's fine, but that doesn't mean Apple is going to conform to you. Nor will you being able to crack open your Tesla and work on the OS or CPU.
    The new Mac Pro is in some ways "clearly better" than the older Mac Pro, both of which are equally serviceable. You are making a false correlation that serviceability is mutually exclusive to how good a machine is. The lack of serviceability isn't the definition of how good a product is. What disadvantages to you would the ability to add more RAM or storage space to a desktop machine bring? I await your reply, but I doubt you will since you never concede when asked something awkward.

    Not sure who you think you're kidding when you say there are consumer advantages to non-serviceable products, the only advantage is to Apple, more repair profits and more RAM/SSD upgrade profits. Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when a tyre wears out?

    Interesting point!  Especially when it is reframed to:  "Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when the battery wears out?

    Are the coming EVs designed to replace the battery when it dies?   I have not seen much on that -- especially as some manufacturers are talking about making it part of "frame" of the car.   Rather, I hear auto makers say that the "battery will last for the life of the car" -- which may be another way of saying "the car will last the length of the battery".

    We, in developed countries, have normalized a disposable culture.   I do not think that speaks well for us.  Nor does it bode well for us.   You don't get rich by throwing stuff away.  Old Ben Franklin had it right:   "A penny saved is a penny earned".
    edited April 28 elijahgmuthuk_vanalingambaconstang
  • Reply 127 of 291
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,167member
    elijahg said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    How often do you service or upgrade your iPad? Your iPhone? Your Apple TV? Your Watch? Your TV set? etc... Yet these are clearly better products than the more-easily serviceable early-computing counter-parts, right? Side note, my grandad used to repair his vacuum-tube tele, but I have never done this nor will I. My solid-state flat panel TV lasts way longer, and by the time it fails, it won't be cost effective to try to repair its electronics. I'll dispose of it properly and get whatever newer tech is out.

    You apparently don't understand the goals of appliance computing, after all these decades. That's fine, but that doesn't mean Apple is going to conform to you. Nor will you being able to crack open your Tesla and work on the OS or CPU.
    The new Mac Pro is in some ways "clearly better" than the older Mac Pro, both of which are equally serviceable. You are making a false correlation that serviceability is mutually exclusive to how good a machine is. The lack of serviceability isn't the definition of how good a product is. What disadvantages to you would the ability to add more RAM or storage space to a desktop machine bring? I await your reply, but I doubt you will since you never concede when asked something awkward.

    Not sure who you think you're kidding when you say there are consumer advantages to non-serviceable products, the only advantage is to Apple, more repair profits and more RAM/SSD upgrade profits. Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when a tyre wears out?

    Interesting point!  Especially when it is reframed to:  "Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when the battery wears out?

    Are the coming EVs designed to replace the battery when it dies?   I have not seen much on that -- especially as some manufacturers are talking about making it part of "frame" of the car.   Rather, I hear auto makers say that the "battery will last for the life of the car" -- which may be another way of saying "the car will last the length of the battery".

    We, in developed countries, have normalized a disposable culture.   I do not think that speaks well for us.  Nor does it bode well for us.   You don't get rich by throwing stuff away.
    You seem to be unable to comprehend that bonding parts is a preferred method of manufacture in a number of industries, increasing structural stiffness and integrity, reliability and the product life cycle. See the aviation industry, and the great example of the Boeing 787. That Apple has been an early adopter of these methods to create a more compact, performant, and increasly reliable devices through most of its product lines will only accelerate.

    If you don't like what Apple is manufacturing, you have many choices in the PC industry to choose from, but I would note that those OEM's are also increasingly following Apple and others in building compact computing devices that are not upgradeable not user serviceable, and these have also proven very popular with their customer base.


    "You don't get rich by throwing stuff away", is an obvious falsehood.

    You get rich by increasing productivity, quite rich in fact, and "throwing stuff away" is certainly a cost, in energy and environmental waste that must be managed and recycled, but that cost pales against the productivity increases. Apple appears to be managing all of that with increasing success, as are other companies.

    Maybe you should only speak for yourself, not for the rest of the buying public, given that you aren't really looking for productivity increases in your computing.
    edited April 28 williamlondonrundhvidcrowleyqwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 128 of 291
    thedbathedba Posts: 647member
    Found this little tidbit on the Daring Fireball site this morning.  I think it definitely applies to a thread like this one.

    RIDE OUT THE STORM 

    From chapter 87 of Basecamp’s book Getting Real:

    When you rock the boat, there will be waves. After you introduce a new feature, change a policy, or remove something, knee-jerk reactions, often negative, will pour in.

    Resist the urge to panic or rapidly change things in response. Passions flare in the beginning. But if you ride out this initial 24-48 hour period, things will usually settle down. Most people respond before they’ve really dug in and used whatever you’ve added (or gotten along with what you’ve removed). So sit back, take it all in, and don’t make a move until some time has passed. Then you’ll be able to offer a more reasoned response.

    edited April 28 rundhvidtmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 129 of 291
    revenantrevenant Posts: 616member
    I am ready for someone to claim to sue apple for being anti-competitive for smoking past their competition. 

    qwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 130 of 291
    It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

    Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.
    The mystery is: Why on earth are YOU interested in Apple products. At all?

    The data dies with my machine anyway. It's what I want. It's a feature. Company property and information? Poor business practice if it's not backed up. But this situation will never happen to me anyway. I won't be caught dead in a Starbucks joint.


    Interesting point!  Especially when it is reframed to:  "Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when the battery wears out?

    Are the coming EVs designed to replace the battery when it dies?   I have not seen much on that -- especially as some manufacturers are talking about making it part of "frame" of the car.   Rather, I hear auto makers say that the "battery will last for the life of the car" -- which may be another way of saying "the car will last the length of the battery".

    We, in developed countries, have normalized a disposable culture.   I do not think that speaks well for us.  Nor does it bode well for us.   You don't get rich by throwing stuff away.  Old Ben Franklin had it right:   "A penny saved is a penny earned".
    Most if not all EVs have battery packs that can be replaced, and it's not part of the frame but the chassis. Many of them uses standard 18650 or 26650 cells boxed up. Owner can replace the entire rack or in fact a single cell. The industry leaders (like Porsche Taycan and Mercedes EQC/EQS) have similar cells. Which are replaceable and recyclable. Like the aluminum used in the chassis and body plates of the car itself.
  • Reply 131 of 291
    nhtnht Posts: 4,521member
    elijahg said:
    nht said:
    elijahg said:
    nht said:
    elijahg said:

    Your business is one data point, the business I worked at had about 200 Macs and we would buy the base config. I personally upgraded the RAM in each machine, saving around $150 on Apple's prices. It took about 5 minutes per Mac, and about $400 of my time to do so for all 200 Macs. 
    Lol.  You updated 200 Macs in 16 hours.  Right.

    And your billable rate is $25 an hour.  Mkay.
    How is that so hard to believe? Remember Macs of yore didn't need to be completely disassembled to upgrade the RAM (I know, right?? how novel!). The RAM slot was under the chin, a single 2.5mm Allen key allowed access, out with the old RAM and in with the new. 5 minutes at most. The 27" iMacs are barely more difficult now. If you had a clue you'd know it's a 5 minute job.

    Not a "billable rate", I was not a contractor.
    I have a clue because I’ve moved a hundred or so Macs before as a volunteer.

    And you didn’t boot to make sure it still worked?  Nice.
    Moving "a hundred or so Macs" is somehow equivalent to upgrading their RAM? Well next time I post a Mac to someone, I'll make note to expect a RAM upgrade mid-transit by the courier.

    Since I was installing the RAM before I imaged the machines from our Xserves, yes I did boot them to make sure it worked. You don't need to wait for one machine to finish starting up before you begin installing RAM on the next.
    Because logistically staging and moving a couple hundred machines around takes a lot of space.  Even if all you’re doing is moving to a central area since they were replaced en mass and are now getting final inventory before excessed.  It takes a lot less time to check an inventory sticker and make sure each machine has a keyboard mouse and power cords and still boots than it does to replace ram and still boot and it still took longer to do than 16 staff hours.

    While you can boot them in parallel there are only so many we could do at a time due to space and power.

    Upgrading 5 machines is easy.  200 is a pain in the ass.  Just stacking 200 new iMacs somewhere fills a large work area.

    if you are only doing a few machines at a time and flow it into initial build you can bury the task since imaging takes the lion’s share of the time.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 132 of 291
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,543member
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.

    I think I explained my thinking on the benefits to the customer.  A thinner, lighter, more solid and perhaps longer-lasting design benefits the customer.  Speaking from a real-world and personal perspective, the benefits to me have been more than marginal.  As I said, I was a person who used to upgrade things myself.  I did RAM, HDD, SSD, battery (modular or internal), etc.  I don't care about that anymore.  Know why?  Because I don't need to do it.  The components on my 2015 (model year, actually started using in fall of 2016) MBP haven't needed to be replaced or upgraded.  I'm at the point now where I still don't need more capabilities, but I'll probably upgrade in a year or two anyway.  After all, my product is now vintage and nearly obsolete.  

    Again, all things being equal, I prefer upgradeability.  But things are not equal.  The design is better.  The feel is better.  Components last longer and are higher performance.  It's like complaining that you can't swap out your fuel injectors, when you could change your carburetor in your classic car.  
    tmaywilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 133 of 291
    nhtnht Posts: 4,521member
    elijahg said:
    nht said:
    elijahg said:

    What disadvantages to you would the ability to add more RAM or storage space to a desktop machine bring? I await your reply, but I doubt you will since you never concede when asked something awkward. 

    The disadvantage is that it would be slower than the implementation in the M1 where the memory is in the package and “unified” to the processor.

    More storage is just cost. $800 is a bit steep for 2TB but I can get an external 2TB Samsung T7 for about $300.  I can do a single nvme 2TB ssd in a thunderbolt enclosure for not much more. 512MB is reasonable to host the OS and apps and for a desktop the mini with an external nvme based 4 ssd thunderbolt 3 RAID will be very speedy.  Perhaps not as speedy as some the benchmarks for the M1 mini but that’s another trade off.  If you want high speed storage then $800 may be a fair price given the performance.
    So using slow swap and wearing out the soldered SSD is better than having slightly slower RAM off-package which won't run out? They're going to have to have RAM off-package for the >16GB models, else the package would be gigantic and you'd lose the advantage of on-package RAM anyway.

    A TB enclosure with the same data transfer rate (4 lanes) as the internal SSD is $139, which is quite a bit more, and results in one of the whole two USB ports in use on the iMacs. That doesn't actually answer the second part of my question though, which was "What disadvantages to you would the ability to add more storage space to a desktop machine bring?" That was in the context of internal storage, to be clear.
    Yes you can use a larger package to get more than 16GB in a package if required.

    You can also use 2 M1s for double the RAM.  For most use cases where multiple cores are off doing other things (like having a gazillion web pages open) there’s no loss of performance.

    Only if you needed more than 16GB at a time would you see a speed decrease from needing to access ram from the other package.

    And your quote clearly says RAM and storage.  Not just storage.

    The M1 Macs seem to have faster storage access than the T2 Macs.  How much of this is due to them being able to optimize the controller with the SSD chips used and how much is just the controller and chips themselves is TBD.  So the disadvantage in allowing for an internal user replaceable SSD in the mini is possibly slower SSD performance overall.

    In any case, it’s a non issue to use external storage on the Mini so not having user upgradable SSD in the mini is minor.

    If the 1st gen M1 Macs suffer from excessive wear and short life on the SSD then my expectation is that Apple will fix it.

    My suspicion is that it’s a Rosetta issue and a couple apps causing a lot of swap to get used.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 134 of 291
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 867member
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    I had used my old MBA 2011 for 9 years as well, without any upgrade. It's just not necessary. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 135 of 291
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 867member
    dk49 said:
    mattinoz said:
    Great fairly predictable what will be interesting is what direction M2 goes?
    Eating the top Intels and AMDs for lunch! 
    Dream on. AMD has just came out with new processor and line of small low power computers. Apple should have really consider AMD before proprietary CPU. We know how fairytale of G3 and G4 ended 15 years ago. I still have QuickSilver home for nostalgia collectible.
    Yeah because Apple today is the same Apple of old that's almost bankrupted.
    tmay
  • Reply 136 of 291
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,485member
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.
    "For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit"

    It offers a laptop that is lighter due it being thinner.  That may not be a benefit to you but it is benefit to many consumers.  So much so that Windows makers have started copying the MBA design in spades.  It isn't a surprise that ultrabooks like the MBA are the hottest selling segment of the laptop market.  And now with the M1 MBA, you get a laptop that's light, fast and runs cool & quiet.

    The average consumer does not care about the same things that you or other IT folk care about.  What they care about are devices that are convenient, easy to use, fast, quiet, cool and have access to web and their favorite apps. Sure, there are some consumers who care about upgradeability but they're far from the majority.  This is the mass market.  And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against computers that are upgradeable but if that's what YOU are after then you should buy a device that allows you to do that.
    edited April 28 williamlondontmaycrowleywatto_cobra
  • Reply 137 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,496member
    tmay said:
    elijahg said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    How often do you service or upgrade your iPad? Your iPhone? Your Apple TV? Your Watch? Your TV set? etc... Yet these are clearly better products than the more-easily serviceable early-computing counter-parts, right? Side note, my grandad used to repair his vacuum-tube tele, but I have never done this nor will I. My solid-state flat panel TV lasts way longer, and by the time it fails, it won't be cost effective to try to repair its electronics. I'll dispose of it properly and get whatever newer tech is out.

    You apparently don't understand the goals of appliance computing, after all these decades. That's fine, but that doesn't mean Apple is going to conform to you. Nor will you being able to crack open your Tesla and work on the OS or CPU.
    The new Mac Pro is in some ways "clearly better" than the older Mac Pro, both of which are equally serviceable. You are making a false correlation that serviceability is mutually exclusive to how good a machine is. The lack of serviceability isn't the definition of how good a product is. What disadvantages to you would the ability to add more RAM or storage space to a desktop machine bring? I await your reply, but I doubt you will since you never concede when asked something awkward.

    Not sure who you think you're kidding when you say there are consumer advantages to non-serviceable products, the only advantage is to Apple, more repair profits and more RAM/SSD upgrade profits. Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when a tyre wears out?

    Interesting point!  Especially when it is reframed to:  "Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when the battery wears out?

    Are the coming EVs designed to replace the battery when it dies?   I have not seen much on that -- especially as some manufacturers are talking about making it part of "frame" of the car.   Rather, I hear auto makers say that the "battery will last for the life of the car" -- which may be another way of saying "the car will last the length of the battery".

    We, in developed countries, have normalized a disposable culture.   I do not think that speaks well for us.  Nor does it bode well for us.   You don't get rich by throwing stuff away.
    You seem to be unable to comprehend that bonding parts is a preferred method of manufacture in a number of industries, increasing structural stiffness and integrity, reliability and the product life cycle. See the aviation industry, and the great example of the Boeing 787. That Apple has been an early adopter of these methods to create a more compact, performant, and increasly reliable devices through most of its product lines will only accelerate.

    If you don't like what Apple is manufacturing, you have many choices in the PC industry to choose from, but I would note that those OEM's are also increasingly following Apple and others in building compact computing devices that are not upgradeable not user serviceable, and these have also proven very popular with their customer base.


    "You don't get rich by throwing stuff away", is an obvious falsehood.

    You get rich by increasing productivity, quite rich in fact, and "throwing stuff away" is certainly a cost, in energy and environmental waste that must be managed and recycled, but that cost pales against the productivity increases. Apple appears to be managing all of that with increasing success, as are other companies.

    Maybe you should only speak for yourself, not for the rest of the buying public, given that you aren't really looking for productivity increases in your computing.

    Ok... LOL... Throw away your MacBook and see if that makes you any richer.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 138 of 291
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,159member
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.
    "For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit"

    It offers a laptop that is lighter due it being thinner.  That may not be a benefit to you but it is benefit to many consumers.  So much so that Windows makers have started copying the MBA design in spades.  It isn't a surprise that ultrabooks like the MBA are the hottest selling segment of the laptop market.  And now with the M1 MBA, you get a laptop that's light, fast and runs cool & quiet.

    The average consumer does not care about the same things that you or other IT folk care about.  What they care about are devices that are convenient, easy to use, fast, quiet, cool and have access to web and their favorite apps. Sure, there are some consumers who care about upgradeability but they're far from the majority.  This is the mass market.  And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against computers that are upgradeable but if that's what YOU are after then you should buy a device that allows you to do that.
    Maybe you don't need to copy Apple to make devices thinner and lighter.  For example, the ThinkPad X1 Nano is a 2 pound notebook, smaller and lighter than any current Apple notebook, and it has a replaceable SSD and battery, among other parts.  


    X1 Nano Gen 1 Hardware Maintenance Manual (lenovo.com)

    And this not only benefits someone who later needs a larger SSD drive, but also makes possible to service the device onsite without special tools.  That could be a better design compared to Apple notebooks, where you have to send it via mail or take it to an Apple Store for service.  
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 139 of 291
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,485member
    danvm said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.
    "For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit"

    It offers a laptop that is lighter due it being thinner.  That may not be a benefit to you but it is benefit to many consumers.  So much so that Windows makers have started copying the MBA design in spades.  It isn't a surprise that ultrabooks like the MBA are the hottest selling segment of the laptop market.  And now with the M1 MBA, you get a laptop that's light, fast and runs cool & quiet.

    The average consumer does not care about the same things that you or other IT folk care about.  What they care about are devices that are convenient, easy to use, fast, quiet, cool and have access to web and their favorite apps. Sure, there are some consumers who care about upgradeability but they're far from the majority.  This is the mass market.  And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against computers that are upgradeable but if that's what YOU are after then you should buy a device that allows you to do that.
    Maybe you don't need to copy Apple to make devices thinner and lighter.  For example, the ThinkPad X1 Nano is a 2 pound notebook, smaller and lighter than any current Apple notebook, and it has a replaceable SSD and battery, among other parts.  


    X1 Nano Gen 1 Hardware Maintenance Manual (lenovo.com)

    And this not only benefits someone who later needs a larger SSD drive, but also makes possible to service the device onsite without special tools.  That could be a better design compared to Apple notebooks, where you have to send it via mail or take it to an Apple Store for service.  
    Like I said in my previous post, if that's a design that works for you then more power to you.  The vast majority of average consumers using their device for home use is not goint to go through the trouble of opening up their laptop, upgrade the SSD & reinstall the OS.  They want to buy it and forget it.
    Xedwilliamlondonqwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 140 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,894member
    tmay said:
    elijahg said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    How often do you service or upgrade your iPad? Your iPhone? Your Apple TV? Your Watch? Your TV set? etc... Yet these are clearly better products than the more-easily serviceable early-computing counter-parts, right? Side note, my grandad used to repair his vacuum-tube tele, but I have never done this nor will I. My solid-state flat panel TV lasts way longer, and by the time it fails, it won't be cost effective to try to repair its electronics. I'll dispose of it properly and get whatever newer tech is out.

    You apparently don't understand the goals of appliance computing, after all these decades. That's fine, but that doesn't mean Apple is going to conform to you. Nor will you being able to crack open your Tesla and work on the OS or CPU.
    The new Mac Pro is in some ways "clearly better" than the older Mac Pro, both of which are equally serviceable. You are making a false correlation that serviceability is mutually exclusive to how good a machine is. The lack of serviceability isn't the definition of how good a product is. What disadvantages to you would the ability to add more RAM or storage space to a desktop machine bring? I await your reply, but I doubt you will since you never concede when asked something awkward.

    Not sure who you think you're kidding when you say there are consumer advantages to non-serviceable products, the only advantage is to Apple, more repair profits and more RAM/SSD upgrade profits. Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when a tyre wears out?

    Interesting point!  Especially when it is reframed to:  "Should we glue everything together in cars too such that the entire thing has to be replaced when the battery wears out?

    Are the coming EVs designed to replace the battery when it dies?   I have not seen much on that -- especially as some manufacturers are talking about making it part of "frame" of the car.   Rather, I hear auto makers say that the "battery will last for the life of the car" -- which may be another way of saying "the car will last the length of the battery".

    We, in developed countries, have normalized a disposable culture.   I do not think that speaks well for us.  Nor does it bode well for us.   You don't get rich by throwing stuff away.
    You seem to be unable to comprehend that bonding parts is a preferred method of manufacture in a number of industries, increasing structural stiffness and integrity, reliability and the product life cycle. See the aviation industry, and the great example of the Boeing 787. That Apple has been an early adopter of these methods to create a more compact, performant, and increasly reliable devices through most of its product lines will only accelerate.

    If you don't like what Apple is manufacturing, you have many choices in the PC industry to choose from, but I would note that those OEM's are also increasingly following Apple and others in building compact computing devices that are not upgradeable not user serviceable, and these have also proven very popular with their customer base.


    "You don't get rich by throwing stuff away", is an obvious falsehood.

    You get rich by increasing productivity, quite rich in fact, and "throwing stuff away" is certainly a cost, in energy and environmental waste that must be managed and recycled, but that cost pales against the productivity increases. Apple appears to be managing all of that with increasing success, as are other companies.

    Maybe you should only speak for yourself, not for the rest of the buying public, given that you aren't really looking for productivity increases in your computing.

    Ok... LOL... Throw away your MacBook and see if that makes you any richer.
    tmay gave you a thoughtful reply, and this is your response?  You've lost it George, it you ever had it.
    Xedqwerty52watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.