Apple's arrogance of non-upgradeable Macs

I kinda wish I had not sold my 2011 Macbook pro, but my 2009 white macbook serves me just as well as the newer one did. The only thing I miss is the SD card reader. I’ve upgraded with RAM, SSD and a new second hand battery and its all good. I’m on an age pension and unlike those of you still in gainful employment, will never again have the financial resources to buy a new machine every time Apple decides to make things not upgradeable… I don’t see why people like me should be excluded from owning decent machines for long periods through upgrades, but we are.

I’ll make do with what I have, I don’t have any choice in the matter, except to switch to a windows machine or linux. And really, I prefer OSX, so its all a bit of a pain.

1 Like

Or you do what I did.

I just replaced my 3 year old 4GB Ram MacBook Pro with a Lenevo which offers the ability to upgrade the ram and has a full range of ports.

Yes I prefer Mac OS to Windows 10 (really I do) but NOT to the point of compromising my ability to upgrade my machines.

The iMac 27 and the MacMini are still in the house (as is my iPhone 6S+) but unless Apple change their ‘dumbing down’ hardware direction and realize that they need to offer real professional portables (anyone else miss the 17 inch MacBook Pro?) then the number of Apple machines in my household and business will continue to gradually drop.

1 Like

Apple has been going down this path for a long time. I don’t think it’s a surprise.

They’re focussed on the 80% who don’t need upgrades rather than the 20% who do. We’ve seen this with Aperture and the rest of their “professional” products.

When it comes to phones, if you want to tinker, then IOS is not the right platform.

Realistically, with SSD, if you max your ram you are safe. The performance offered by SSD negates any upgrades other than potentially carrying an external, and Apple was well ahead of the rest of the market when it came to HDD performance. As an example, MS only introduced PCIE in the SP4/SB while Apple had it from 3 years earlier so my 3yr old MBA was faster than my newer SP3 as a result, so in short, whilst a lot of the manufacturers were worried about getting an extra 10% from a CPU, Apple was still well ahead because of HDD performance.

Wow - this topic is on fire! :wink:

I know it’s not necessarily historically accurate, but I did find it fascinating in the Sorkin Steve Jobs movie where they talked about the 128k Mac having proprietary tools to disassemble, and the debate about expansion vs closed systems (Apple II vs Mac). Apple has ALWAYS wanted to make closed hardware. Even back in the 80s & 90s, expansion was external (SCSI).

There have just been a few glimpses of open-ness in hardware (PowerMac 8600/9600, Powerbook 1400, Powerbook G3, PowerMac G5, Cheesegrater Mac Pros) but otherwise it’s almost entirely only ever been RAM that’s officially upgradable internally. And at least now it’s soldered, Apple actually ship their machines with a decent amount of that!

I’m in the camp that says “why does there only have to be one way?” not “all machines should be expandable”. I don’t want an upgradeable laptop, but I do want options for better battery life. I’d happily carry an extra 500gms of battery. I’d also love a 17-inch MacBook Pro again.

On the desktop side, I am fine with the iMacs not being upgradable, but it’s a sin that the 21-inch comes with a 5400RPM drive. If it had SSD across the line, I’d be happy. As it is, at least I can replace those shitty drives with standard 2.5-inch SSDs for people… :wink: I’d like to see an expandable Mac Pro, because I personally think external expansion is messy and don’t understand why Apple don’t see that no-one other than massive edit houses like Pixar uses just a Mac Pro and a thunderbolt display. They all have external storage, audio interfaces, etc. etc. A well specced cheese grater + 30-inch cinema display from 10 years ago looks WAY less cluttered, while having all that internally.

I want options for different users. That to me is the most frustrating part about Apple. The continual slide towards consumers who don’t need power, battery life or expandability as the only option annoys me. Why can’t I buy a slightly thicker iPhone if I know I’ll never get a full day out of a 6? We have 4 different colours, and one specification of battery. The priorities are all wrong (and to be honest, completely shallow!). The criticisms people levelled at Apple’s OS in the past (“it’s pretty but not powerful”) have now come true of the hardware… (OS X killed the previous arguments!).

1 Like

Yes but Apple don’t allow me to configure the SSD size as an option (at all on the base or midrange models) so even if I max the RAM on the base model I’m stuck with 128Gb storage.

Yes I could fit an aftermarket SSD but with Apple’s recent attitude towards 3rd party repairers and 3rd party parts (with phones and ipads) how long before they refuse to repair MacBook Pros with 3rd party parts?

That did not leave me feeling at all confident that I’d be ok down the track with a 3rd party SSD hence my choice.

If you are working on their base level 13", the mid tier option allows you to go from a 128GB to a 256GB with the only difference being the SSD change so I’m confused. You can get a 16GB upgrade with a 256GB without going to the high level model. The only one that has slight limitations is the highest option which forces you to upgrade your processor. That’s hardly a show stopper.

As for third party repairs, as far as I understand, I don’t think they could legally not repair a piece of hardware. They would have to repair but they could charge for it.

I have to say, for myself, I am not at that tipping point yet - my hate for Windows is still > than my love for OSX - the formula for decision to change over does include upgradability, but that variable has a lower value by many factors compared to usability, stability and my general well-being and mental health.

For iMacs (at least) that is factually inaccurate, historically Apple by default only installed 5400RPM drives and only offered a 7200RPM as a BTO option, they now continue to do this (5400 RPM drive by default) and offer a ‘Fusion’ drive as an option but I think that this is still pairing SSD with a slow 5400RPM drive.

We had a 2012 iMac in here last week and with the 5400 RPM drive in it runs like an absolute pig, much as my 2012 MacBook did until I replaced the 5400 RPM drive with an SSD.

I posted on MT and here about my experiences using SP1 and then SP3 for over 2 years on Win8 and then Win10 - it started off well, but Win10 just started to throw BSODs at me every other day (to be fair, I use a lot of peripherals and that was basically the main cause we think) but that prompted me to go full Windows for work as well as play now (good thing my work IT managed to get me on the network on my Mac). I now don’t use any Windows at all, which has been liberating to be honest.

I can’t go to a 1TB (which is what I really want) without going for the top end model.

In the past I’ve been able to option my configuration without going to the top end model.

I’m not trying to be a ‘windows fanboy’ here, I really do prefer Apple and OS X but Apple are forcing me to choose between buying the MacBook Pro that’s ‘in my budget but doesn’t meet my needs’ or a ‘windows box that’s unfortunately windows but does meet my needs (just not my wants)’.

If I had an unlimited budget sure, but where as 5 years ago using Apple meant a premium on top of Windows of about 25% now it’s almost 100% to get similar spec boxen and that’s not sustainable for me.

My main issue I suspect is that Apple are expecting people to move to the cloud for storage but where I live with my broadband performance and mobile coverage that’s simply not an option, I need large amounts of local portable storage. And yes I know I can buy an external drive but I’m already carrying an external DVD.

Should I really have to carry 2 external drives when 5 years ago I carried none and had enough local storage?

I don’t agree there is a premium, or at least not 100%. Yeah, if you buy a clone maybe, but if you buy a comparable premium machine from one of the vendors, you’ll find the same or similar pricing.

On the issue of externals, you have a variety of options. You have SD drives (256Gb) which would be flush with the machine and unnoticeable. The externals these days are tiny and weigh and you can’t compare them to 2.5" drives which I would also avoid carrying. I have a sony SSD that is in my bag permanently.

OK maybe not 100% but certainly close and definitely more than the roughly 25% I was paying 5 years ago.

Lenevo is IBM (or the spun off division of IBM that makes PC), I’d consider that ‘non clone’.

Their Thinkpad T series are their ‘Flagship Professional models’ (their words).

I optioned the base model Thinkpad T 560 15.6 inch laptop with (note all the available options) -:
16GB RAM, 512GbB drive, IPS non touch screen, finger print reader, backlit keyboard, smart card reader, 6 cell battery (22 hours) and integrated 4G broadband.

The cost for all of that was $2126.

http://www3.lenovo.com/au/en/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpad-t-series/T560/p/20FJCTO1WWENAU0?CSRFToken=f811a506-3236-498c-a8f3-c1d7cad96d0c#tab-features

To get the same local storage in a current 15 inch MacBook Pro (which lacks some of the features of the IBM/Lenevo) comes in at $3579 which is an increase of 68% (or about 2/3rds more expensive so not quite double but not far off it).

Other than the minor issue that it’s plastic, is still running SATA3 which is about a quarter of the speed of the drive on the 15" MBP (yes, a quarter because the MBP 15" runs 4 channels of PCIE), is 3cm longer, 2cm wider (you work out the difference that makes in your bag), and weighs about 300grams more, or to put it into perspective, you could carry your MacBook Pro and 6 x 2TB Samsung USB3 hard drives (12TB total over the internal storage) and still have the same weight.

Personally I’d rather take a metal MBP and a 1TB external and be a quarter of a kilo better off with more space in my bag and a drive that is 4x faster.

The weight isn’t really an issue, it only gets carried from the work ute into a work site then back out again. Nor is the speed an issue, the software in use is very light on CPU and graphics needs but very heavy on storage.

And yes I could carry external drives but sitting at a remote location with a laptop balanced on a car bonnet or a fence post or a ute tray isn’t exactly the ideal place to be using lots of external bits and pieces.

Look I’m not trying to say that the Lenevo is a superior machine to the MacBook Pro in every way because clearly it isn’t. Other than the speed it could be a laptop from 10 years ago, but that’s fine. What I want is an updated version of the laptop from 10 years ago! I want a 2006 Macbook Pro with modern processors and drives but if I can’t get that in an Apple laptop I’ll get it in a Windows laptop. Hell I’d settle for an updated plastic MacBook from 10 years ago (and no I wouldn’t care it’s plastic).

Lenevo’s availability of options is superior and the price is substantially less BECAUSE it’s designed in a similar way to Lenevo’s from 10 years ago, it still even has the nipple mouse.

OTOH Apple prices have gone up during a time while Windows laptop prices have either remained stable or have in many cases come down. And Apple have not only increased prices but whilst doing that have reduced functionality by removing ports, by removing optical drives, by reducing upgradability and by restricting 3rd party part usage.

Even the MacPro isn’t as expandable as it used to be, the old cheese grater MacPros were great.

But the new one, it requires external expansion… now think about that for a moment… a workstation machine (well supposedly) that requires external expansion. That’s just wrong.

1 Like

Ultimately all this carrying on about non-upgradeable Macs ignores the fact that Apple has done their research and has found that there is such a tiny minority of people who actually do want to upgrade them that it’s not worth the sacrifices to actually accommodate them. If there was a groundswell of opposition to the closed hardware then you may see Apple (and all the other manufacturers who you claim copy Apple for no other reason than they are Apple [which is laughable in itself]) change their philosophy, but that clearly isn’t the case.

My point really is that it’s sad that we only matter to Apple if there are “enough” of us. One size fits all is the sad reality of a company run by the sales people… what did Steve Jobs say about companies run by sales people?

Do BMW only sell one type of car? Do Dyson only sell one type of vacuum? Do phone companies only have one plan?

Apple only sell “thin and light” laptops and “compact” desktop computers. The lack of diversity is justifiable from a “sales analysis” perspective. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best experience for all customers, and Apple like to go on and on about being all about the customer experience. But what they actually mean is they are all about the customer experience for the mainstream majority customer. There is no long tail to Apple’s product line.

While I remember that the dark days before Steve’s return where there were heaps of product lines with almost complete overlap, I’d argue that a little more diversity would be ok (and I’m not talking about new colours!).

I can’t believe that Apple would loose money if they offered a 17-inch MacBook Pro, or a ‘fat’ iPhone with 4x the battery life. They either must not make enough on a 17-inch machine to ‘justify’ it, or they either arrogantly don’t want to make a phone they consider ‘ugly’ because they are fat-ist. :wink:

1 Like

So you think Apple should spend millions on design, setting up a production line, marketing and distribution for an upgradable computer that may only sell in the thousands? Seems like a great way to lose money.

[quote=“AVC, post:29, topic:2706”]
Apple has done their research and has found that there is such a tiny minority of people who actually do want to upgrade them that it’s not worth the sacrifices to actually accommodate them[/quote]

I don’t think that the market segment that ‘want to be able to upgrade’ is really as small as you suggest.

Rather I believe the cost related to the number of people willing to bite the bullet and buy a non apple product because they can’t upgrade anymore (lost sales to Apple) is smaller than the cost involved in producing traditional Apple Prosumer type products. That is to say it was a bean counter driven decision and not a design decision (although I’m sure they’re careful to spin it as design driven).

And none of that means there aren’t a lot of dissatisfied Apple users out there because there are, but they tend to be long term and arguably lower profit Apple users. People who’re on fixed incomes or who have other budget constraints who aren’t upgrading every cycle or even every second cycle. And if Apple upsets those users it doesn’t hurt their bottom line much, even less so when they can sell thin and sexy laptops and phones to the corporate types on short replacement cycles.

As for other manufacturers copying Apple everyone copies everyone and the large manufacturers want to have a product in every practicable market segment. Samsung copies iPhone copies Samsung copies HTC copies iPhone etc etc etc.

That’s just the way the 21st century is heading (even movies are mostly reboots these days!)

No, and I don’t think I’ve said that anywhere.

I think for certain lines, like the Mac Pro, building the computer customers actually use rather than the aspirationally ‘compact’ computer they do (that just inevitably leads to cable city out the back) would be a better customer experience.

For laptops and phones, I think you’d find a lot more than ‘thousands’ would choose a 17-inch screen were it available, or a laptop with 2x the battery and an extra half a kilo weight, or a phone with 4x the battery life. But Apple don’t care about that. They define enough battery life with a bunch of tests and any time they make things more efficient they make them thinner rather than increasing the battery life.

I’m not saying “all computers have to be upgradeable”. I’m saying is the hump back battery pack really the best Apple can come up with for power users? Why can’t there be a “fat” phone (that is equally un-upgradebale)? Because it doesn’t ‘look’ good in marketing??

1 Like

Didn’t Apple discontinue the 17" for exactly that reason?

My guess is that if Apple thought the demand was high enough, they would be doing it but demand isn’t as simple as X sales. They have to carry X amount of stock for spare parts as well and my guess is the numbers don’t match up for them.

1 Like