New MacBooks have upgradable ssds - but its proprietary

[goodtofufriday]

Source: https://www.custompcreview.com/news/good-news-new-macbook-pro-upgradeable-ssd-bad-news-proprietary/34536/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Quote

Interestingly enough, one thing they discovered is that the SSD inside comes in a proprietary module sitting right underneath the speakers. Given that the SSD is in a module that isn’t completely soldered into the PCB, this means that the SSD can potentially be upgraded. Awesome. Unfortunately, one look at the module and it’s pretty clear that the design is very proprietary. As such, it’ll likely take some time before 3rd parties come up with some sort of compatible SSD solution 

 

Not the first time apple has done this, msata and m.2. But we've been able to use very simple adapters so solve that. This connector may not allow for that this time around.

[Guest]

Just don't buy apple stuff? Problem solved.

 

And oh, desktop pc's were already upgradable for a LONG time.

[BingoFishy]

Apple using proprietary technology?

 

Blasphemy!

/s

 

I wonder if Apple'll be selling these. It seems unlikely given that they seem to frown upon opening up your computers for upgrading more than RAM, but we can always hope. If they do though, it'll probably be very expensive. The reason for the removable SSDs in the first place is probably to make repairs easier.

[Arri]

If the 15" touchbar MBP's turn out to be the same way.. I might purchase one. I'm sure OWC or another company can figure a solution and that way I can install a 1TB SSD without paying $1000 or whatever Apple wants.

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, BingoFishy said:

Apple using proprietary technology?

 

Blasphemy!

/s

 

I wonder if Apple'll be selling these. It seems unlikely given that they seem to frown upon opening up your computers for upgrading more than RAM, but we can always hope. If they do though, it'll probably be very expensive. The reason for the removable SSDs in the first place is probably to make repairs easier.

They didn't sell the ssds they used in previous macs, so there really is no reason to do it now. However, I do remember some small company came out with a not very powerful TLC SSD that was, in fact, using the proprietary connector used in the 2015 MacBook Pro. It was a lot slower than the one used in the Mac, but it made it theoretically upgradeable.

[rattacko123]

What has apple been doing? It's been a year and all they have developed is a phone with a lightning port (no USB-C come on apple) and a laptop with subpar/old specs and lack of ports and battery, but a great keyboard/trackpad. Where are the USB-C peripherals? Like seriously, with such a big move like this there should be something out there, but all I can find is adapters and a monitor with, oh what do you know a USB-C hub which you cant plug anything into. Seriously apple are you trying to lose profit? because I do not understand these decisions from a business standpoint. 

[goodtofufriday]

16 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

They didn't sell the ssds they used in previous macs, so there really is no reason to do it now. However, I do remember some small company came out with a not very powerful TLC SSD that was, in fact, using the proprietary connector used in the 2015 MacBook Pro. It was a lot slower than the one used in the Mac, but it made it theoretically upgradeable.

There are adapters for those connectors that let you use an msata or m.2 sata ssd from any manufacturer like samsung and the like. 

[captain cactus]

So 3rd party SSD makers like OCZ will make one of these. Big deal.

 

I'm more surprised by the fact that it isn't soldered to the motherboard.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Its not like those PCIE SSD's are slow and require an upgrade in the next 2-3 years, but okay. Especially the 2TB ones.

[79wjd]

14 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Its not like those PCIE SSD's are slow and require an upgrade in the next 2-3 years, but okay. Especially the 2TB ones.

The problem is that the 2tb SSD upgrade is $1400. But this also isn't unexpected, the previous retina Macs also couldn't use any M.2 drive (although OWC eventually released a compatible, but slower, one).

[goodtofufriday]

29 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The problem is that the 2tb SSD upgrade is $1400. But this also isn't unexpected, the previous retina Macs also couldn't use any M.2 drive (although OWC eventually released a compatible, but slower, one).

Sintech made plenty of adapters so that you could use any manufactures drive though

 

 

 

[Sauron]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

The problem is that the 2tb SSD upgrade is $1400.

That's probably the reason they are doing this in the first place. Why would you drop 1400$ when you could buy the cheaper, lower capacity model and upgrade for half of that price?

[potoooooooo]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

That's probably the reason they are doing this in the first place. Why would you drop 1400$ when you could buy the cheaper, lower capacity model and upgrade for half of that price?

Lenovo has huge "problems" with this, but they know if the stopped they would lose all of their business

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's probably the reason they are doing this in the first place. Why would you drop 1400$ when you could buy the cheaper, lower capacity model and upgrade for half of that price?

Maybe, although a lot of people aren't capable of (or willing to) upgrading it anyway. It could also be because they needed a specific shape and it's easier to use a proprietary drive than redesigning the layout. 

 

Although, it's also worth keeping in mind, that Apple doesn't want you to upgrade anything because 1) you're likely to cause damage (and thus complain), or 2) you'll replace it with an inferior solution (and then complain), and 3) because money.

[Sauron]

Just now, potoooooooo said:

Lenovo has huge "problems" with this, but they know if the stopped they would lose all of their business

Which is good, generally when people buy a thinkpad they want something very specific and as far as I know only Lenovo provides it. Upgradeability and function over form design is a big part of that.

[Sauron]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Maybe, although a lot of people aren't capable of (or willing to) upgrading it anyway. It could also be because they needed a specific shape and it's easier to use a proprietary drive than redesigning the layout. 

 

Although, it's also worth keeping in mind, that Apple doesn't want you to upgrade anything because 1) you're likely to cause damage (and thus complain), or 2) you'll replace it with an inferior solution (and then complain), and 3) because money.

Of course there's that, but if I pay 700$ for the ssd and 100$ (to exaggerate) to someone who can install it for me I still spared 600 bananas.

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Of course there's that, but if I pay 700$ for the ssd and 100$ (to exaggerate) to someone who can install it for me I still spared 600 bananas.

I'm not saying you can't save money. You definitely can, but you're also more than likely going to be buying an inferior product (and thus you won't necessarily get the experience Apple is trying to deliver, and thus you complain).

 

Although in all fairness to Apple, a comparable 2tb PCIE SSD would actually cost >$1400. The largest 950 Pro is 512gb @ $300 (2TB @ $1200 assuming it scales, but generally the ultra high capacity drives get a hefty price hike) and it's slower. Now of course, Apple will still probably be charging $1400 in a year or two, at which point 2TB NVME SSDs will have become cheaper, but for right now, this is still valid.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

You definitely can, but you're also more than likely going to be buying an inferior product

You already done that if you bought apple stuff... Sorry but there is no real excuse for the huge price tag on their mostly outdated hardware.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

You already done that if you bought apple stuff... Sorry but there is no real excuse for the huge price tag on their mostly outdated hardware.

Too bad the hardware isn't outdated or inferior (plus their priced fairly competitively with other ultrabooks). But you clearly don't want to listen to anyone else and just want to continue to maintain your bias. So I'm done here.

[BuckGup]

This is not news AT ALL. You have had this option since the first macbooks. They had standard 2.5 drives that you could swap out for SSDs now they just have a standard they made. OCZ has had these types of drives ever since Apple announced them

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Too bad the hardware isn't outdated or inferior. But you clearly don't want to listen to anyone else and just want to continue to maintain your bias. So I'm done here.

I wonder which one of us has bias, certainly not me. When i bought my current laptop i looked at what apple has to offer at the time, well it wasnt good enough after i factored in the prices...

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

I wonder which one of us has bias, certainly not me. When i bought my current laptop i looked at what apple has to offer at the time, well it wasnt good enough after i factored in the prices...

Clearly the one who didn't even bother to look at any other device in the ultrabook category.

 

MBP vs. XPS: 

 

 

 

Dell XPS 15: 

• $1850
  • 6700HQ
  • 16gb DDR4 2133mhz
  • 4K touch
  • Adobe RGB display @ 400 nits
  • 960m
  • 256gb PCIE SSD (+$150 for 512gb, +$500 for 1tb)
  • 4-6~ hours depending on the review
  • 4.4lbs, 11-17mm

Macbook Pro 15":

• $2400
  • 6700HQ
  • 16GB LPDDR3 2133mhz
  • 2880x1800 (non-touch)
  • P3 display @ 500nits
  • Pro 450
  • 256gb PCIE SSD (+$200 for 512gb, +$600 for 1tb)
  • 8~ hours (at least for the previous model)
  • 4lb, 15.5mm
• $2000
  • 4770HQ
  • 16GB DDR3
  • 2800x1800
  • sRGB @ 300nits
  • 256GB PCIE SSD
  • Iris Pro (5200)
  • 8~ hour battery
  • 4.5lbs, 18.9mm

Conclusion: 

The XPS 15 has the advantage of having a touch screen and being 4k, however, 4k isn't all that good a on 15" screen especially with Windows poor scaling; and touch is hit or miss (either people want it or they don't). The GPU is relatively close, although a 960m should be a bit faster. The 15" Mac also has an OLED Touch bar and Touch ID, which looks to be contributing at least $200 to the price. In terms of battery life Apple definitely has the advantage. Build quality, I/O, and aesthetics are all pretty much equal imo and both have their advantages. The Mac definitely has the trackpad advantage as I'd say it's both superior and significantly larger (although the XPS trackpad is still excellent). The XPS probably has a better keyboard (at least compared to butterfly gen 1) since Apple went with butterfly gen 2 switches (but only time will tell here, although I'm not super optimistic). The display, at least from my understanding is kind of a toss up, P3 and Adobe RGB extend the standard colorspace in opposite directions, although the Mac gets 25% brighter (at least on paper).

TL;DR: All in all, you're paying 30% more for an OLED touch bar, touchID, better battery life, OSX, and slightly worse GPU performance (with a pretty hefty chunk coming from the OLED bar). IMO the price hike is unjustified, I don't see the OLED bar costing Apple what they're charging (even when considering all BOM costs), and so I think the old Haswell-based model ($2000) is still an excellent choice for many users who want/prefer OSX and don't need the GPU performance but would much rather have better battery life instead. 

 

Dell XPS 13:

• $1400
  • i5-7200u
  • 8GB LPDDR3 1866mhz
  • 3200x1800 touch
  • Adobe RGB display? @ 400nits
  • 256gb PCIE SSD
  • HD 620 (20%~ slower than HD540)
  • 9~ hours battery
  • 2.9lbs, 9-15mm

Macbook Pro 13":

• $1500 (non OLED)
  • i5-6360u
  • 8GB LPDDR3 1866mhz
  • 2560x1600
  • P3 display
  • 256gb PCIE SSD
  • Iris 540
  • 9~ hours battery (presumably)
  • 3lbs, 14.9mm

Conclusion: I'm breaking this up into two comparisons, the non-oled 13" and the $1400 XPS 13. The XPS 13 has a slight CPU advantage (Kabylake vs. Skylake) and a slight display advantage in terms of resolution (although, you still have the bad UI scaling of Windows to deal with) and likely on par in terms of quality, while the Mac has a better iGPU and everything else is relatively similar. So like with the 15", the Mac has the trackpad advantage while the XPS likely has they keyboard advantage. So $1500 vs. $1400 for relatively similar raw performance with each having an advantage in certain conditions. 

 

Dell XPS 13:

• $1850
  • i7-7500u
  • 16GB LPDDR3 1866mhz
  • 3200x1800 touch
  • Adobe RGB display? @ 400nits
  • 512gb PCIE SSD
  • 9~ hours battery
  • 2.9lbs, 9-15mm
  • HD620

Macbook Pro 13":

• $1800 ($2200 w/ comparable ram/ssd)
  • i5-6267u
  • 8GB LPDDR3 2133mhz (+$200 for 16gb)
  • 2560x1600
  • P3
  • 256GB PCIE SSD (+$400 for 16gb/512gb)
  • Iris 550
  • 3lbs 14.9
  • 9~ hours battery (presumably)
  • 3lbs, 14.9mm
  • OLED Bar/Touch ID

Conclusion: This one is a bit tougher and suffers from the same OLED price hike as the 15". I'll be considering the 13" with the 16gb/512gb configuration (i.e. $2200). In terms of CPU performance, the XPS 13 has a bit of an advantage (Kaby Lake vs. Skylake), it also has a bit of display advantage in terms of resolution (while suffering scaling issues), but in terms of quality it's probably fairly similar P3 vs. Adobe RGB. The Mac is using HD550 (HD540 is 20%~ faster than HD620, and I believe HD550 is about 20% faster than HD540), which is about 40% faster than HD620 that's in the XPS 13. The Mac also has the trackpad advantage while the XPS the keyboard advantage, and the Mac also has a touch bar. 

If you're aiming for the 256gb/8gb model, then the 13" MBP is $1800 while the XPS 13 is $1400, so at this configuration the XPS 13 takes a pretty big price lead (With everything mentioned above still holding true).

 

Summary: The non-oled 13" is priced competitively with the XPS 13 while the OLED 13" costs about 20% more for a slower CPU, better iGPU, and an OLED touch bar. Whether or not the GPU performance (or CPU performance for that matter) matters is entirely dependent on the use case, but in all fairness, the performance delta does exist. So all-in-all, the 13" models are priced decently but the OLED bar definitely does add more than it should as far as I'm concerned. 

 

[goodtofufriday]

25 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Too bad the hardware isn't outdated or inferior (plus their priced fairly competitively with other ultrabooks). But you clearly don't want to listen to anyone else and just want to continue to maintain your bias. So I'm done here.

Apple is offering a dual core processor with 8gb and an igpu as a Pro model. Outdated and inferior is the correct statement.

[79wjd]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

Apple is offering a dual core processor with 8gb and an igpu as a Pro model. Outdated and inferior is the correct statement.

As is Dell, Razer, and probably every other ultrabook manufacturer. What's your point? 

 

I see XPS being recommended left and right and yet, it's not too far off from the Mac in terms of specs or pricing. 

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

As is Dell, Razer, and probably every other ultrabook manufacturer. What's your point? 

The Pro models are not ultrabooks.