Detnator

crowley said:

Detnator said:

crowley said:

Detnator said:

crowley said:

StrangeDays said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Since Apple is likely removing the option to add RAM to their systems, how about throwing us a bone and giving us access to a M2 SSD slot or two? SSDs are in rapid development right now. The last one I bought (for my PS5 which does have a M2 slot) was slightly more than 6 GB per second read bandwidth. It would give the Mac a longer use life if it could be upgraded with faster and larger SSDs in the future as they become available and more affordable. M2 SSDs are about as small as a stick of RAM and even easier to install. Most users could do it with a screw driver.

Unlikely. Apple solders storage chips, which have the benefit of being faster and more reliable than slotted components. 

They're perfectly able to do that and have m2 slots.

Yeah but they won't. At least not in anything other than a Mac Pro.  

They might.  Plenty of people said Apple would never bring HDMI or SD back to the MacBook.  Plenty of people said Apple wouldn't make their machines user serviceable again.  Apple have been doing plenty of u-turns recently.

That's a good point.  I feel pretty strongly about this one, but now I'm asking myself why. I feel like my own personal track record for predicting these things (just conceptually from what I know of Apple's history etc., no real insights) is usually pretty good. And in this case I honestly can't see it.

But I admit, I was one of those "plenty of people" -- I really couldn't see them bringing those ports back and they did. So I guess you're right -- who knows at this point.

One things for certain, they certainly won't add m2 unless people are asking for it.  That's why I find lkrupp's attempts to shut down any discussion (I honestly have no idea what they think message boards are for, they seem to hate every conversation) with snark so objectionable.  If no one talks about what they want then nothing gets better.

For the record, I'd be very surprised if they added m2 slots.  I don't think it's at all likely to happen.  But they might, and I'd like it very much if they did. 

If they do add them to a future MBP, I hope they'll add two, and not compromise them in any way, so they can be striped. Internally I care about performance.  I can accommodate redundancy externally.

I gave it some more thought... 

To add them is more than just whacking a couple of slots on a board, obviously.  Among other things, there's PCIe lanes at least to consider and how those are distributed across, well, almost everything now.  (I believe the SD card and the HDMI aren't the latest specs because of PCIe limitations..?)  

So it's a significant design decision.  And therefore one reason I really think they won't is because if they were ever going to anytime soon -- at least for MacBook Pros (where arguably they'd be the most useful, if they are in any Mac) -- then they would have done so already (while they made, as you say, a significant number of other reversals).

Perhaps future M chips will have more lanes or whatever else is needed.

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Since Apple is likely removing the option to add RAM to their systems, how about throwing us a bone and giving us access to a M2 SSD slot or two? SSDs are in rapid development right now. The last one I bought (for my PS5 which does have a M2 slot) was slightly more than 6 GB per second read bandwidth. It would give the Mac a longer use life if it could be upgraded with faster and larger SSDs in the future as they become available and more affordable. M2 SSDs are about as small as a stick of RAM and even easier to install. Most users could do it with a screw driver.

I'm going to really labor the following points because they're so fundamental...

As others have said, I'm pretty sure Apple is very unlikely to do this. It goes against many of their philosophies.  Apple is heading towards everything being proprietary.  You can upgrade the storage in the current Mac Pro, but only with Apple proprietary storage modules.  The only "advantage" anyone has with being able to stick any old M.2 drive in a Mac is that you can stick any old M.2 drive in it and not have to buy Apple's option.  They have no financial or technical interest in accommodating that, and the advantages that come with virtually all their proprietary solutions to everything are of genuine benefit to everyone in Apple's target market.

A couple of key points there...

The first point is: the benefits of proprietary stuff: Apple doesn't just use their own proprietary stuff just to give the finger to people like you who want more flexibility.  Just like with Apple Silicon, there are genuine benefits to most of Apple's proprietary solutions -- it's (a) the very limited choices (fewer choices means less bloat and more performance -- Apple stuff is leaner and faster because it doesn't have to cater to every possible hardware configuration in the world like Windows does), and (b) the tight integration of everything that gives them much more control over making it all work well together. All that is a large part of what makes Apple stuff so much better than PCs, at least for the people that appreciate those particular benefits.  (eg. In the case of soldered RAM -- now the RAM is practically soldered to the CPU not just the board, and we've all seen how that improves performance.  In the case of soldered drives -- or in the Mac Pro's case, proprietary slotted drives -- it's a lot about security without losing performance, among other things).

Sure some of Apple's customers don't appreciate those benefits as much as they would appreciate losing those benefits for more flexibility, but that brings me to the second key point I'm making.  Those particular customers are the vast minority of Apple's customers, and they are not at all Apple's TARGET market.  Apple is willing, maybe happy, to have customers that only begrudgingly buy their stuff because even with all the "compromises" it's still "better".  But Apple has no interest to catering to those customers, when the vast majority of Apple's customers are the people Apple has always prioritized (since the very beginning in the 70's).  It's their "computer for the rest of us" mentality.  The vast majority of Apple's customers -- and the people Apple targets most -- are those who buy what they want, turn it on and use it, and NEVER open it up, or fiddle with the Terminal, or change much more than a few of the default settings etc.  That's Apple's TARGET market, and Apple will never compromise what they can deliver to those people, and what those people appreciate, for those of us who do want to tinker.  

You can't have both.  It's not technically possible.  No one can deliver the better security, reliability, etc. that Apple delivers, using just standard M.2 drives instead of their proprietary ones, just like no one will ever be able to deliver the same level of performance Apple can deliver without all the tight integration (and lack of upgradeability) that comes with Apple Silicon.  So either we prefer Apple's "better" proprietary solutions (without the "flexibility") or we prefer the flexibility at the cost of the tight integration and resulting security and performance.  If you're in the latter category, then the Mac isn't for you.  Instead, as StrangeDays mentioned, you're better off with a Dell.

Sadly, when this response has been handed out in the past, the people who still want the flexibility say "But I don't want a PC or Windows, I like macOS" or whatever else.  That's when you have to realize that the REASON you like macOS is because of the things that are better about macOS, and at least some of those things exist only because of the tight integration with the hardware.  Sure, macOS "works" on PC's but there are all kinds of issues. Just ask any Hackintosh builder.  Most people who build Hackintoshes, don't mind those issues, but Apple's not going to support them because those issues hurt their brand.  So again, it's one or the other.  Everything that comes with tight integration, and everything that comes with flexibility, by definition, are technically impossible together.

So no, I really can't see Apple putting M.2 slots in their Macs any more than they're going to put Intel chips in any new ones.

sloaah said:

darkvader said:

shareef777 said:

The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.

An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.

No, it's not meant for professionals.  I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.

They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.

Those are for rich idiots.

Sadly this is true. I’m also in the film industry and the XDR has received so much flak for its poor backlight performance. It sits in a no man’s land - too expensive for a GUI monitor, and nowhere near good enough for colour critical applications. 

It also feels to me a bit like the philosophy of the previous gen of Intel MBPs. A proper colour grading pipeline is quite complicated involving LUT boxes etc. Apple tried to simplify all of that but has consequently forced a workflow which simply cannot work in an professional colour grading context. 

Personally I think the monitor should be retired completely, and that Apple should release cheaper models and possibly an updated Pro XDR which is actually functional. 

These are some reasonable comments.  Indeed the XDR has some issues. It’s a first gen product that fits a pretty small niche, but that’s been true of past Apple monitors. 

darkvader said:

opinion said:

Half the price is still to high. Sometimes I think that there is no point in making the best products if people can’t afford them. 

10% of the price is still too high.  $350 would be about reasonable for a good 27" monitor, you can get a nice 27" 4K LG for about that.

I suppose Apple might charge $500 for a monitor about that quality, but it would be a ripoff.

As usual you make me laugh.  You want a cheap 27” 4K monitor…?  Everyone and their mother makes them. At 250, maybe 350 nits brightness, with woeful contrast, washed out images, no color accuracy and the build quality of a dollar store trinket. Put one of those next to an iMac and tell me you can’t see the difference and I’ll recommend a good eye surgeon for you. 

shareef777 said:

The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.

An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.

No, it's not meant for professionals.  I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.

They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.

Those are for rich idiots.

Just because I’ve seen it doesn’t mean it’s any good. People who use Apple’s high end gear may be rich but they’re not idiots. Maybe they are rich because they use the right tools for their jobs and so they can actually make stuff that people want to buy - like Marvel movies for example.  

doggone said:

I stopped buying Apple monitors 20 years ago.  The price and feature set has not been favorable compared to other vendors. I rather save the money and use that on Apple computers instead.  I have only one rule and that is not to buy any Samsung displays.  Dell's out too.  Even with that limitation you can get monitors that are equivalently spec'd to an Apple one at half the price.
Here's a selection of USB-C monitors are all types of activities.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/usb-c

Bottom line, Apple monitors will always be more expensive because they cannot sell in the same volume as other brands.  

Except all of those are low resolution and ridiculously low brightness. Today’s consumer monitors are painful to do any serious work on. Why is Apple the only company that can deliver decent (retina resolution 500+nits) displays (except LG’s ultrafines which they made exclusively for Apple anyway.