MacStudio Storage Upgrade video Misinformation and Inaccuracies

[Ena]

I'm writing this because for once I've seen this LTT video and it did not sit right with me.

 

Seems like only surface level research was done on the topic, which resulted in poor execution of the process, many bits of misinformation, which overall resulted in a video with a wrong apple anti-repair biased conclusion.

 

Before I get into to the actual NAND upgrade part, at 9:30, Alex said that the Recovery environment was removed, which is wrong, the recovery environment still exists, however, you cannot reach it if the machine doesn't "POST", and because of  how the hardware is setup, the machine won't start if there is a hardware problem. you can still access it to reinstall/recover your os.

 

If Alex were to say that "unfortunately apple didn't made a way for the machine to recover the firmware by itself" it would be otherwise ok. since that is the truth.

 

Regarding the Upgrade process, in the video they acknowledge that the NAND modules are not full SSDs, which is correct. However the way they tackled the upgrade still was very "PC Centric", Research done by 

Hector on twitter implies that the NAND upgrade is possible as long as you use a supported configuration.

The way they did the upgrade would be akin to upgrade a RAM Stick where half of the chips were from one vendor and half were from another.

I have not seen a single YouTuber show a proper upgrade where they for example, get a 1TB m1 Ultra and upgrade it with 2TB using the same configuration as a second m1 Ultra with a 2TB NAND.

 

I've seen the argument that, "the controller is programable so apple is blocking these SSDs from working", that is an absolute insane thing to say. because despite not being modular, what lives inside the macStudio (or all other modern macs) is an SSD, and an SSD is expected to be assembled the way it was engineered to work, it is not designed to accommodate random combinations of NAND setups, its the exact same way other manufacturers do it, like samsung for example, they would design a Firmware for their 970 nVMEs ssd for example. The board is designed in a way that many storage tiers can be accommodated, however the firmware only accepts the ones samsung designed them to work with.

 

I expected a better video from LTT, that went into these details and gave up a proper conclusion. They could make the argument that apple could've made their SSD's controller to support more random NAND configuration, which is fine.

 

But they concluded by saying that apple is Anti-consumer and anti repair, which, in many fronts, I agree with there are countless entries on their backlog to back this up.

 

However on this instance when they actually made something that is at least repairable, considering NAND is degradable part of the computer, and possibly upgradable despite what they say on their site about it not being upgradable. And even making the tool for it available to the public. Its absolutely crazy for me.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

24 minutes ago, Ena said:

Before I get into to the actual NAND upgrade part, at 9:30, Alex said that the Recovery environment was removed, which is wrong, the recovery environment still exists, however, you cannot reach it if the machine doesn't "POST", and because of  how the hardware is setup, the machine won't start if there is a hardware problem. you can still access it to reinstall/recover your os.

Well I mean they shouldn't have to require a different mac in order to fix a mac with a swapped module.  I mean it's the same concept where you needed a Mac in order to program for iPhones.  There is less justification for being able to do this, unless if it's either a way to prevent people from doing so themselves or they were cheaping out and didn't want to offer that functionality in the design.  I mean it already knows the flash module was switched, they could have easily had it boot into the recovery utility.  Like every single modern motherboard I own has a way to re-flash the bios with just a simple USB drive.

 

Also the way you suggest they mention it is a bit more about splitting hairs really.  Also if you consider what was said about the recover environment you can here him say as a single sentence [actually had recovery environment so that you know you could reflash the firmware].  That makes it pretty similar to what said anyways.  The whole concept though that it's a bad product design requiring that.

 

There is also the big fact that he had to do it twice!  That is a huge issue btw, if their own recovery tool takes 2 attempts to do something this simple.

 

38 minutes ago, Ena said:

The way they did the upgrade would be akin to upgrade a RAM Stick where half of the chips were from one vendor and half were from another.

I have not seen a single YouTuber show a proper upgrade where they for example, get a 1TB m1 Ultra and upgrade it with 2TB using the same configuration as a second m1 Ultra with a 2TB NAND.

Well what they did try was putting in a second same capacity NAND flash that they got from the other MAC and it failed. As a note, you can put two different vendors of RAM sticks in.  People say you can't, but I've done it multiple times at work without issue.  Typically though it just reverts to speeds of the lowest common setting...but since these came from the same MAC then they should be matching the same kind of specs that Apple provided them.

 

47 minutes ago, Ena said:

But they concluded by saying that apple is Anti-consumer and anti repair, which, in many fronts, I agree with there are countless entries on their backlog to back this up.

Their conclusion didn't mention anti-repair.  They say heavily imply it's anti-consumer, and I agree, that they lock you down into a pretty rigid structure of effectively replacing it.

[Ena]

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I mean they shouldn't have to require a different mac in order to fix a mac with a swapped module.  I mean it's the same concept where you needed a Mac in order to program for iPhones. 

 

Don't get Setting up a new phone and recover a device with a broken OS. You still need a computer to restore your iPhone if the OS gets corrupted, And you are not entitled to it getting this functionality by design, considering was never meant to be replaced by the consumer. I'm happy enough to be able to do it despite their claims instead of not being able to at all.

 

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well what they did try was putting in a second same capacity NAND flash that they got from the other MAC and it failed.

As I said, It needs to be a supported configuration by the SSD Controller's firmware. Read the Twitter post I put there, that 512+512GB SSD configuration isn't shipped by apple, therefore its not supported, also it might not work if the vendors are not the same. Also there is reason to believe that the modules have to sit on the slot they were meant to.

 

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As a note, you can put two different vendors of RAM sticks in.  People say you can't, but I've done it multiple times at work without issue.  Typically though it just reverts to speeds of the lowest common setting...but since these came from the same MAC then they should be matching the same kind of specs that Apple provided them.

 

You failed to understand what I meant, I was referring to a single module, imagine a ram module, where it's chips are modular, and you mix up incompatible ones is. One other way to put it is, imagine you have a regular m.2 NVME SSD, but the NAND is modular, if you put in a NAND setup that is not compatible with the controller's firmware it won't work. ITs how the MacStudio SSD works.

[Forbidden Wafer]

11 minutes ago, Ena said:

Don't get Setting up a new phone and recover a device with a broken OS. You still need a computer to restore your iPhone if the OS gets corrupted, And you are not entitled to it getting this functionality by design, considering was never meant to be replaced by the consumer. I'm happy enough to be able to do it despite their claims instead of not being able to at all.

Because iPhone is shit and doesn't use A/B upgrades as every major OS should have been using for decades. Chrome OS is the best example.

Or doesn't include OS recovery firmware to fetch the working OS from a network server, like the Macs used to have. Androids can use TWRP to do that.

14 minutes ago, Ena said:

ITs how the MacStudio SSD works.

Which is why it is anti-consumer, anti-repair, goes against good engineering practices, etc, etc.

[wanderingfool2]

3 minutes ago, Ena said:

Don't get Setting up a new phone and recover a device with a broken OS. You still need a computer to restore your iPhone if the OS gets corrupted, And you are not entitled to it getting this functionality by design, considering was never meant to be replaced by the consumer. I'm happy enough to be able to do it despite their claims instead of not being able to at all.

I was talking about programming.  I mean for the longest time they went out of their way to block iPhone apps there were developed on non-mac products.  That speaks plenty about their intent.

 

8 minutes ago, Ena said:

Can you link me to when they tried that? I didn't find it, or did not notice it if was on that video.

They did so near the end of the video where they concluded that upgrading by putting in a second stick wasn't possible.  From what was said in the video, everything about the flash appeared exactly the same (so should be the same manufacturer then).  Their recover process failed when they had in the 2 sticks into it...which seems to contravene what Hector Martin was guessing would be possible.

 

I mean you are talking about them not doing research, and you missed the entire 4 minute long segment that is titled "Can you Upgrade"?  They literally show him putting in the second flash an trying it.  It doesn't support two flash modules and being restored like that.

 

It's a bit ironic that you talk about them not doing research or them calling it anti-repair...and yet it really feels like you stopped watching the video half way and decided to come to your own conclusion about what they concluded in the video.

[Ena]

10 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I was talking about programming.  I mean for the longest time they went out of their way to block iPhone apps there were developed on non-mac products.  That speaks plenty about their intent.

This is totally besides the point of the discussion.

 

10 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They did so near the end of the video where they concluded that upgrading by putting in a second stick wasn't possible.  From what was said in the video, everything about the flash appeared exactly the same (so should be the same manufacturer then).  Their recover process failed when they had in the 2 sticks into it...which seems to contravene what Hector Martin was guessing would be possible.

 

I mean you are talking about them not doing research, and you missed the entire 4 minute long segment that is titled "Can you Upgrade"?  They literally show him putting in the second flash an trying it.  It doesn't support two flash modules and being restored like that.

 

It's a bit ironic that you talk about them not doing research or them calling it anti-repair...and yet it really feels like you stopped watching the video half way and decided to come to your own conclusion about what they concluded in the video.

I misread your first reply, I thought you said "they did try upgrading to a 1TB SSD", so I thought that they did try to update to a supported 1024+0GB configuration, thats why I edited the message, go back and read it again.

 

And buddy, I would not call "we've seen some reports" of terrible copy paste journalists making news based off Luke Miani's first video (the guy that did not even know DFU recovery exists). "Research"

 

Luke Miani's first videos on the Storage upgrade subject are incomplete, but excusable, back then the topic was much much newer, even today we don't have all the answers, but I would expect LTT to make a video at least with all we know thus far on the subject.

[Ena]

24 minutes ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

Which is why it is anti-consumer, anti-repair, goes against good engineering practices, etc, etc.

You do not replace one NAND chip off of an SSD with a Phison controller with one of a higher capacity, then complain that the SSD does not work.

 

Also how is it anti-repair if you can still replace it and have it work? perhaps you are out of the loop.

 

I should also add that the 2019 Intel Mac Pro's SSD system works in the Exact same way. you cannot mismatch then and modules, apple sells SSD upgrades for that machine, and you have to use the kit they provide otherwise it won't work. And yes you still need to DFU restore it.

 

[wanderingfool2]

12 minutes ago, Ena said:

And buddy, I would not call "we've seen some reports" of terrible copy paste journalists making news based off Luke Miani's first video (the guy that did not even know DFU recovery exists). "Research"

 

Luke Miani's first videos on the Storage upgrade subject are incomplete, but excusable, back then the topic was much much newer, even today we don't have all the answers, but I would expect LTT to make a video at least with all we know thus far on the subject.

And that's what you pretty much got with the LTT, what they knew so far.  I doubt they would want to dump more money onto it trying to test a higher capacity flash, especially after their attempt at a second module failed.

 

It also speaks wonders to Apples engineering that they designed it still to require a second Mac.  Luke's video kind of shows it, he wasn't able to boot into the recovery utility (because he wasn't aware that you needed to do so with a second MAC...again it's a terrible design which speaks massively to how Apple designed it).

[Ena]

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And that's what you pretty much got with the LTT, what they knew so far.  I doubt they would want to dump more money onto it trying to test a higher capacity flash, especially after their attempt at a second module failed.

Wrong, this info about the module compatibility has been around since late march. they just did not research well enough.

They totally should dump more money and test it further, I too want to see closure on this, get the info on how exactly this works.

 

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It also speaks wonders to Apples engineering that they designed it still to require a second Mac.  Luke's video kind of shows it, he wasn't able to boot into the recovery utility (because he wasn't aware that you needed to do so with a second MAC...again it's a terrible design which speaks massively to how Apple designed it).

It shows that Luke also didn't research anything, since the 2019 Mac Pro that has the same SSD setup also requires a DFU restore even when upgrading using the Apple Sold MacPro SSD Upgrade KIT.

 

I know it is annoying needing to have a 2nd mac to DFU restore it, but again I would rather have the option instead of not being able to do it at all. And again, the macStudio is not advertise as being Consumer Upgradable, so they have that excuse to making the process so complicated. But then again the MacPro is and it requires DFU restore too so I digress.

 

[Forbidden Wafer]

13 minutes ago, Ena said:

You do not replace one NAND chip off of an SSD with a Phison controller with one of a higher capacity, then complain that the SSD does not work.

You do not remove the SSD controller from a slotted SSD drive, just to make it a custom one and make everything more complicated, expensive and claim to be user/repair/eco-friendly.

 

13 minutes ago, Ena said:

Also how is it anti-repair if you can still replace it and have it work? perhaps you are out of the loop.

Requiring an additional computer to make the repair when previous computers did not require that is anti-repair.

Requiring custom parts to replace what could be off-the-shelf components, that are cheaper too, is anti-repair.

13 minutes ago, Ena said:

I should also add that the 2019 Intel Mac Pro's SSD system works in the Exact same way. 

Exactly, and it is shit people have been complaining for a while.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Ena said:

Seems like only surface level research was done on the topic, which resulted in poor execution of the process, many bits of misinformation, which overall resulted in a video with a wrong apple anti-repair biased conclusion.

Sadly, pretty much every LTT video is this was from what I can tell. Very surface level knowledge and understanding, presented in an authoritative way which makes people think "these guys know what they are talking about". 

 

The more knowledgeable I became, the more glaring issues I started seeing in their videos and at some point I just gave up. 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. LTT should just drop the act of being "infotainment" or educational and go full on entertainment. 

If you watch LTT for research or to gain knowledgeable, you will be misinformed and misguided. Sometimes only a little bit, but sometimes a lot. 

My go to example is their FAP about MAC addresses where they clearly had no idea what they were talking about. It's honestly embarrassing that the video is still up since almost every single sentence they say in it is wrong. 

[kumicota]

48 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

My go to example is their FAP about MAC addresses where they clearly had no idea what they were talking about

Which video is this one?

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, kumicota said:

Which video is this one?

 

 

I might have been a bit harsh when I said "every single sentence is wrong", but the video is all over the place and brings up things that are completely unrelated to MAC addresses. For example they start talking about NAT for some reason, even though NAT does not use MAC addresses. NAT overload, aka PAT, aka NAT gets brought up even though that has nothing to do with MAC addresses. That's done using port numbers.

They also never explain why a MAC address is needed. They just go "you need both a MAC address and an IP address".

They also say things like, "your ISP uses your MAC address to block you if you don't pay your bills", which is not really true either. I mean, some might, but if they do it's VERY rare and primitive.

 

I am not even sure "switch" is mentioned even once in this video, even though that is the primary device that uses and relies on MAC addresses.

 

 

This video is about the same length, don't get a bunch of things wrong, and not only explain properly what a MAC address is, but also explains what an IP address is, why we have subnet masks, what a router is, and how an IP is different from a MAC address.

 

[Forbidden Wafer]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I might have been a bit harsh when I said "every single sentence is wrong", but the video is all over the place and brings up things that are completely unrelated to MAC addresses.

That was craptastic. I'm legit impressed on how confusing trying not to explain something could get. Whoever wrote that script must have been drunk or something.

[kumicota]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

I might have been a bit harsh when I said "every single sentence is wrong", but the video is all over the place and brings up things that are completely unrelated to MAC addresses. For example they start talking about NAT for some reason, even though NAT does not use MAC addresses. NAT overload, aka PAT, aka NAT gets brought up even though that has nothing to do with MAC addresses. That's done using port numbers.

They also never explain why a MAC address is needed. They just go "you need both a MAC address and an IP address".

They also say things like, "your ISP uses your MAC address to block you if you don't pay your bills", which is not really true either. I mean, some might, but if they do it's VERY rare and primitive.

 

I am not even sure "switch" is mentioned even once in this video, even though that is the primary device that uses and relies on MAC addresses.

 

 

This video is about the same length, don't get a bunch of things wrong, and not only explain properly what a MAC address is, but also explains what an IP address is, why we have subnet masks, what a router is, and how an IP is different from a MAC address.

 

I'm a bit dumb, I got confused MAC address as the channel MAC Adress.

 

I never seen a video so wrong about MAC. They not even explained ARP tables wrong they also said that it was a MAC/IP thing.

 

Only a shitty ISP would block non-paying customer by blocking router MAC instead of disabling the GPON/DSL/... authorization credentials that they put on the modem, blocking the MAC is a thing that even amateurs techinicians know that's not how it's done.

 

 

[Forbidden Wafer]

6 hours ago, kumicota said:

Only a shitty ISP would... 

Oh boy, you would be surprised what even the biggest ISPs manage to pull out. A ton of them don't even check for IP spoofing, which is such a basic thing.