4 ms·

> are making a very logical and reasonable trade-off. no they are giving in to hype and it's insanity to pay real world money for a laptop where you can't rem

by chx 3y ago

> are making a very logical and reasonable trade-off. no they are giving in to hype and it's insanity to pay real world money for a laptop where you can't remove storage. Whether it's for repairs or for upgrade this is a fundamental feature that really can't be negotiated with. There are no ifs, buts, nothing. Reason doesn't enter the picture of buying a computer without removable storage. A lot other things do but reason does not. And, to add, unlike with LPDDR memory, there's no engineering reason to do this. There's a lot other reasons -- most of them are not pretty -- but engineering wise your wins are practically none.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dangus 3y ago
Fundamental feature – for you. But not for 23% of US computer buyers who choose Apple systems. This topic reminds me of a story from some relatives. Both relatives are relatively affluent and live in a state with recycling deposits. You save your cans and bottles and return them to the grocery store to get your deposit back, a handful of cents per can. Relative #1 has done this out of habit and thrift for decades, despite being affluent as I discussed. When they were over relative #2’s house for a party, they asked where they keep their cans. #2 said “just throw them in the recycle bin.” #1 said, “but what about the deposit?” And the response was basically just laughter. In the perspective of relative #2, who in their in their right mind cares enough about a bottle deposit to bother wasting their time on it when they can just throw them in the regular recycle bin? It’ll still get recycled, and you save a significant amount of time putting the cans in the deposit machine at the cost of literal pennies per soda can. This is where reason enters the picture. #2 is correct so long as their high income and busy schedule supports the idea that returning can deposits is a complete waste of time. Imagine a doctor canceling an appointment to take their cans over to the grocery store. Now imagine you’re a typical Apple user. You make well above median household income. Apple has 23% marketshare, and coincidentally if you’re top 23% of income in the US you make just about exactly $100,000 a year. Your choice is to buy an Apple system where 1TB of storage costs you an extra $400, but if you bought a PC you could upgrade that storage yourself and only spend around $100, maybe even less. What life sacrifice did you make to spend this extra money if you’re in this income bracket? The truth is you probably wouldn’t notice that missing $400 you spent upgrading the storage to 1TB. Heck, if you’re a business rather than an individual, you now have to pay salaries and factor in lost productivity any time you’re taking a computer away from your employee and spending time repairing it. That situation is double jeopardy: pay IT to do the repair, pay your employee to sit there and do nothing in the meantime. Let’s say you buy a computer every 3 years, which itself is pretty luxurious. In this scenario, that non-upgradable storage basically costs you $100 every year without even considering the sale of your used laptop 3 years later. Basically, getting a laptop with non-removable storage every 3 years like clockwork costs less than a typical streaming service or Amazon Prime. I see no financial reason why any of Apple’s affluent customers should give a flying fuck about upgradable storage. I think it’s actually closer to the bottom of the list than you realize. On top of this, if you’re comparing a Mac to a Windows PC, that means you’re comparing things like integration to your phone and other accessories, battery life, fit and finish, software, performance, and customer support/warranty, not just the single feature of storage upgradability.
- chx 3y ago
  Your whole rant completely misses the point. It's not about upgrading, I mentioned repairs. It's not the price of the raw storage that is the problem. It's the data you stored. You need to be able to keep it in your possession or it's not your data. Of course, cloud providers have so successfully trained US customers some 23% of them think nothing of not owning their data any more. That's the lunacy I am talking of.
  - dangus 3y ago
    If we are talking about data ownership, that is not relevant here. Whether the drive is removable or not has no bearing on whether you implement a 3-2-1 backup. Data stored in one location inside a portable device is always at risk. Drop the laptop in the bathtub or lose it in the airport and the result is the same soldered or not. Nothing about an Apple system stops you from backing up to an external drive (or even booting from one) and the external I/O is fast enough for high-performance SSDs. Let's go down the data ownership road, though: The consumer didn’t need to be brainwashed into cloud storage. Dropbox didn’t need a Super Bowl ad to become a household name. The services solve a real problem, one that existed before drives were soldered. In mayn cases you can't solve the problem for the same amount of money on your own (just put a cheap Synology system and two hard drives in your Amazon cart along with replacement disks every 3-6 years and tell me how much that costs compared to the $8.25/month you pay for Google One. I'm not even sure you can make it breakeven, ever). Hell, I’ve never given Dropbox a dime and they have stored and synced all my important documents for almost a decade now. Not a single item has ever been lost. I’m a terrible storage provider in comparison. An analogy to what you're saying is that someone who leases a car doesn't really get the benefits of that car. But that's not really true, is it? If you lease the car you're the only one who gets to drive it. Tangible data ownership is more of a philosophical preference than a matter of "does this solve my problem or provide me with benefits?"
cameronh90 3y ago
It's perfectly reasonable. Why would they buy a heavier, bulkier laptop when they're never going to upgrade it anyway? They don't care about repairability because they buy AppleCare+ anyway. Repairability is Apple's problem. If they want to upgrade their laptop, they just sell it and buy a new one. They certainly aren't going to crack out the screwdriver set and replace the "SSD" whatever that is. Engineering is about trade-offs between competing end-user requirements. Apple's particular set of trade-offs has clearly resonated with the market.

by chx 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dangus 3y ago

Fundamental feature – for you. But not for 23% of US computer buyers who choose Apple systems. This topic reminds me of a story from some relatives. Both relatives are relatively affluent and live in a state with recycling deposits. You save your cans and bottles and return them to the grocery store to get your deposit back, a handful of cents per can. Relative #1 has done this out of habit and thrift for decades, despite being affluent as I discussed. When they were over relative #2’s house for a party, they asked where they keep their cans. #2 said “just throw them in the recycle bin.” #1 said, “but what about the deposit?” And the response was basically just laughter. In the perspective of relative #2, who in their in their right mind cares enough about a bottle deposit to bother wasting their time on it when they can just throw them in the regular recycle bin? It’ll still get recycled, and you save a significant amount of time putting the cans in the deposit machine at the cost of literal pennies per soda can. This is where reason enters the picture. #2 is correct so long as their high income and busy schedule supports the idea that returning can deposits is a complete waste of time. Imagine a doctor canceling an appointment to take their cans over to the grocery store. Now imagine you’re a typical Apple user. You make well above median household income. Apple has 23% marketshare, and coincidentally if you’re top 23% of income in the US you make just about exactly $100,000 a year. Your choice is to buy an Apple system where 1TB of storage costs you an extra $400, but if you bought a PC you could upgrade that storage yourself and only spend around $100, maybe even less. What life sacrifice did you make to spend this extra money if you’re in this income bracket? The truth is you probably wouldn’t notice that missing $400 you spent upgrading the storage to 1TB. Heck, if you’re a business rather than an individual, you now have to pay salaries and factor in lost productivity any time you’re taking a computer away from your employee and spending time repairing it. That situation is double jeopardy: pay IT to do the repair, pay your employee to sit there and do nothing in the meantime. Let’s say you buy a computer every 3 years, which itself is pretty luxurious. In this scenario, that non-upgradable storage basically costs you $100 every year without even considering the sale of your used laptop 3 years later. Basically, getting a laptop with non-removable storage every 3 years like clockwork costs less than a typical streaming service or Amazon Prime. I see no financial reason why any of Apple’s affluent customers should give a flying fuck about upgradable storage. I think it’s actually closer to the bottom of the list than you realize. On top of this, if you’re comparing a Mac to a Windows PC, that means you’re comparing things like integration to your phone and other accessories, battery life, fit and finish, software, performance, and customer support/warranty, not just the single feature of storage upgradability.

chx 3y ago
Your whole rant completely misses the point. It's not about upgrading, I mentioned repairs. It's not the price of the raw storage that is the problem. It's the data you stored. You need to be able to keep it in your possession or it's not your data. Of course, cloud providers have so successfully trained US customers some 23% of them think nothing of not owning their data any more. That's the lunacy I am talking of.
- dangus 3y ago
  If we are talking about data ownership, that is not relevant here. Whether the drive is removable or not has no bearing on whether you implement a 3-2-1 backup. Data stored in one location inside a portable device is always at risk. Drop the laptop in the bathtub or lose it in the airport and the result is the same soldered or not. Nothing about an Apple system stops you from backing up to an external drive (or even booting from one) and the external I/O is fast enough for high-performance SSDs. Let's go down the data ownership road, though: The consumer didn’t need to be brainwashed into cloud storage. Dropbox didn’t need a Super Bowl ad to become a household name. The services solve a real problem, one that existed before drives were soldered. In mayn cases you can't solve the problem for the same amount of money on your own (just put a cheap Synology system and two hard drives in your Amazon cart along with replacement disks every 3-6 years and tell me how much that costs compared to the $8.25/month you pay for Google One. I'm not even sure you can make it breakeven, ever). Hell, I’ve never given Dropbox a dime and they have stored and synced all my important documents for almost a decade now. Not a single item has ever been lost. I’m a terrible storage provider in comparison. An analogy to what you're saying is that someone who leases a car doesn't really get the benefits of that car. But that's not really true, is it? If you lease the car you're the only one who gets to drive it. Tangible data ownership is more of a philosophical preference than a matter of "does this solve my problem or provide me with benefits?"

cameronh90 3y ago

It's perfectly reasonable. Why would they buy a heavier, bulkier laptop when they're never going to upgrade it anyway? They don't care about repairability because they buy AppleCare+ anyway. Repairability is Apple's problem. If they want to upgrade their laptop, they just sell it and buy a new one. They certainly aren't going to crack out the screwdriver set and replace the "SSD" whatever that is. Engineering is about trade-offs between competing end-user requirements. Apple's particular set of trade-offs has clearly resonated with the market.