Apple's arrogance of non-upgradeable Macs

Mac
#25

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.

#26

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).

#27

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.

#28

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
#29

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.

#30

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
#31

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.

#32

[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!)

#33

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
#34

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
#35

Yep they did. But I’m saying I reckon the definition of “profitable enough to keep as a product” has changed, to the detriment of customer experience. I’m saddened that Apple believe everyone buying a portable should be happy with a 15-inch with 4-5 hrs battery (when actually using the GPU).

I am not saying they aren’t doing there most profitable thing.

#36

I think that’s exactly what they’re doing and that’s primarily profit/share price driven.

That doesn’t mean that a 17inch MacBook Pro wouldn’t make a profit (I’m almost certain it would) but that amount of profit would come at the expense of other items that make a greater profit.

These days it isn’t just about ‘making a profit’ it’s all about ‘maximising the profit’.

#37

Unfortunately that’s the nature of listed companies. They answer to the shareholders. The shareholders want profit.

#38

If enough people were asking for an upgradable computer, Apple would be building it.

#39

Probably. But maybe not. I can’t see any reason, apart from a designer’s decision to make things thinner and lighter, to not have items such as RAM and SSD upgradable by users. Its not like one ever had to tear things to bits to do the upgrades. My old macbook was the easiest set of upgrades I ever did, and it doesnt even seem logical (unless its all about forced obsolescence) not to have this ease of upgrade available in all Macbooks and MBPs.

Its not now, nor has it ever been about what the users want. Apple tells us what we want and we either go along with it or move along.

#40

This. And historically, Apple’s benefits have always far exceeded their limitations. And that is still true in many ways - comparing iOS or MacOS to Windows, there’s no way I’d switch. So I’ll keep carrying a power pack for my laptop as it doesn’t last a full day, and my clients will keep using iPhone battery packs because their phones don’t last a full day.

#41

I’m not talking about upgradeability in the sense of later upgrading old Macs to make them new - so much as expandability for Pro equipment (i.e. adding PCI cards for interfaces, or HDDs for storage).

“You can plug it in if you need it” may work, but it’s not as nice. Hopefully with Thunderbolt 3 we’ll finally get some nicer docks & chassis units like this. If the new MacBook Pro ships with TB3 then I’ll probably make the jump to invest in a TB3 case & external GPU etc. (if it’s supported) And maybe I’ll get a cabinet maker to build me a custom cabinet to hide it all in…

#42

Historically that is true, but it’s less true now than it was 5 years ago and even less true than it was 10 years ago. If one extrapolates that trend I can see a changing Apple user demographic.

That doesn’t mean that Apple will lose sales numbers (they won’t) but the makeup of their user base will alter. IMO there will be less ‘tech type’ users and less prosumer users but more corporate users and more people chasing a brand name.

For example at a Linux conference I attended about 5 years back there were a significant portion of people rocking MacBook Pros (because the hardware was superior to the Windoze boxen) but last year they were almost absent.

And at Amateur Radio hardware design gatherings (think Maker types but older guys) meetings Apple was the most common option but the balance there has shifted towards Windoze as well.

None of that will hurt Apple’s bottom line because as stated earlier us minority ‘tech’ users are no longer profitable for Apple so we’re being ignored.

1 Like
#44

I too hate Apple’s stance on this matter…

Solder in the logic board, graphics card, sound card, sure… But RAM and HDD’s as a bare minimum should always be user upgradable…

I think especially when you have iPads and iPhones and iWatches that cannot be upgraded, to offer Macs as the “serious” computing grunt, the lack of upgradability is a poor choice. Form over function all the way, it seems.

3 Likes
#45

Apple’s insane CTO prices makes it much more expensive on RAM & SSD----if I’m going to spend big bucks for a premium brand I’d opt for either a business class or gasp Razer Blade 14" with a GeForce 1060 GPU. Mac mini & iMac 5400 RPM HDD being standard is beyond stupid–WD & HGST still make 500GB, 750GB & 1TB 7200 RPM HDDs. When my mid-2012 MBP reaches EOL, Apple won’t see me buying anything higher than a Mac mini as none of their “MacBook Pro” models pack enough CPU+GPU power compared to other premium/business class brands.

I don’t know where anyone gets the Thinkpad T series is plastic, if you’ve ever tried smashing one with a baseball bat it’ll require a bunch of wacks before it sheds pieces… a consumer plastic PC will shatter like a vase :grin:

Found this on a Thinkpad forum written by a tech, design wise the T-series hasn’t changed on the material front after the T420/T520:
T41 - Magnesium composite in the top cover, titanium-reinforced CFRP in bottom cover
T42 - Magnesium composite in the top cover, titanium-reinforced CFRP in bottom cover
T43 - Magnesium composite in the top cover, titanium-reinforced CFRP in bottom cover
T60 - 14.1": magnesium composite in top cover, CFRP bottom cover; 15": CFRP in top/bottom
T61 - Top: Super-Elastic PolyCarconate (SEPC); Bottom: Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastic
T400 - Top: Super-Elastic PolyCarbonate (SEPC); Bottom: Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastic
T400s - Display cover: Carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (top), glass-fiber reinforced plastic (side walls); Base: Magnesium alloy
T410 - Top: High Elasticity PolyCarbonate (HEPC); Bottom: Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastic
T410s - Display cover: Carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (top), glass-fiber reinforced plastic (side walls); Base: Magnesium alloy
T500 - Top: Super-Elastic PolyCarbonate (SEPC); Bottom: Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastic
T510 - Display cover: Glass-fiber reinforced plastic; Base: Carbon-fiber reinforced plastic
T420 - Display cover: Carbon-fiber / Glass-fiber hybrid; Bottom: Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastic
T420s - Display cover: Hybrid Carbon-fiber reinforced plastic; Bottom: Magnesium alloy
T520 - Display cover: Carbon-fiber / Glass-fiber hybrid; Bottom: Glass-fiber reinforced plastic without paint
X300 - Display cover: Carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (top), glass-fiber reinforced plastic (side walls); Base: Magnesium alloy
X301 - Display cover: Carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (top), glass-fiber reinforced plastic (side walls); Base: Magnesium alloy

1 Like