1) I really like that there's a lot more high technical skill videos coming out (I can link a few if others are interested and maybe we could grow a list?)
2) Apple makes a big stink about their carbon footprint and sustainability. It is on every product page. But Apple products are not very sustainable when you consider beyond materials. Remember it is "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" (there's 3 arrows on the recycle symbol for a reason!), and I'm concerned that a lot of the focus for green stuff has shifted to only the last R. They're big fighters against the Right To Repair, meaning, they are against Reduce. They also really lock down the OS (especially on iPhones) meaning it is difficult to Reuse.
I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I'm now mostly on Apple (Air for laptop, switched to iPhone this month, but main machine is Linux). I switched because privacy, but I'm also mad about this loss (I felt that they have won, especially with overcharging...): But my old laptops? They become servers or machines I give to others. My old phones? Same thing. Your old phone is probably more powerful than a raspberry pi and comes with a battery backup, microphone, camera, and other things you might want. This is the __Reuse__ part of all of this.
Here's the thing Apple:
- If you want to "go green" you need the other R's. Reduce and Reuse matter MORE than recycling!
- If you want better products, stop blocking power users
That second point is tied in, and important for the reuse aspect. And you know what? I'm willing to bet that if Apple does this, they would actually make more money (as the video joked about). Because this is a big reason people turned to Apple in the first place. Because the machines lasted longer, people were willing to pay more. Programmers preferred them because they were the most linux like.
You were the first trillion dollar company, the first 2 trillion dollar company, and the first 3 trillion dollar company. But you're losing your place. It's time to think different.
They don't want to "go green", they want to maximize profits, as any other corporation. They just need to have a good enough reputation to make sure environmentally-conscious people don't boycott their products. Anything more than that would have a negative effect on their bottom line, so you can be sure they're not going to do it.
Small companies like Framework and Fairphone proved that you can make very repairable and reusable laptops and phones without sacrificing much in the way of form factor (since this used to be the biggest excuse). I think it's safe to say big manufacturers won't follow suit unless forced by legislation.
[deleted]
Worth noting - this is not a m.2 adapter, you couldn't use it to attach standard drives. This is an adapter for fitting proprietary flash cards with NAND on.
This is super impressive! It's a cool POC, although it is already clear that it would be feasible for Apple to put M.2 slots in Macbooks if they wanted to.
I wonder how much it would cost to have someone replace the BGA NAND chips in my Macbook. Apple charges $6-800 for a 2TB upgrade for a Macbook (depending on whether it's a 250 or 500GB drive originally). Someone would have to be able to do it for like $2-300 for it to be a feasible upgrade, especially considering that my warranty would be void. I assume there are people overseas who could do it cheaply. I assume it would be fairly quick for someone who knows what they are doing.
M.2 slots? M.2 SSDs have drive controllers on them, but in the Apple Silicon world, those controllers are integrated in the SoC.
They should absolutely not reuse the slot type for incompatible products.
They should make one though, their storage offerings are lame.
Consider that by the time you’ve ran out of storage you may have also ran out of your warranty.
Ok, so you upgraded the storage, but most of these as well use soldered memory too, not to mention a _lot_ of these ship with _only_ base 8gb of ram. I imagine they'll run out of ram at some point, when apple will deprecate even m1-3 "low-end" 8gb macs to obscurity with the intel variants now that their low-end is 16gb.
How much is too much to upgrade a system vs replacing it and paying more apple tax?
Better ROI making them run linux in a less-needy desktop environment than trying to keep them usable as a mac with macos.
I agree with your sentiment and wanted to point out that for the RAM it's even worse than the storage. The RAM is not soldered on the board, its included in the package with the CPU, which makes upgrading the RAM effectively impossible for these machines.
I remember when this came out, but more recently I recall finding something indicating that this was either untrue or pointless-- for example, while the ICs can be changed out, either the SoC or board knows what SKU it is due to an e-fuse or config locked into a cryptographically-signed firmware package, and refuses to address a different amount of RAM. I can't find that reference, however.
No, the storage is worse, because there’s no reason why they couldn’t include a standard 2230 M.2 slot on all their motherboards, for anyone who wanted to upgrade.
The fixed RAM is annoying, but is done to make the product better — the packaging allows the RAM to be significantly faster than otherwise. It’s a major reason why the M-series CPU and GPU performs so well.
It’s the same reason why you don’t see slotted RAM on GPUs. The performance penalty would be great enough that nobody would buy them.
Agree that it does make the product better, though if they put their RAM chips soldered on the board instead of in package, it would allow repair or upgrade without sacrificing the whole CPU unit.
GPUs do not put their RAM in the same package as the processor itself, and it does not sacrifice a significant amount of performance.
The M-series processors' primary benefit by a huge margin is its architecture that allows a higher memory bandwidth than say SODIMMs and that benefit is independent of the choice to put the RAM in the package.
1) I really like that there's a lot more high technical skill videos coming out (I can link a few if others are interested and maybe we could grow a list?)
2) Apple makes a big stink about their carbon footprint and sustainability. It is on every product page. But Apple products are not very sustainable when you consider beyond materials. Remember it is "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" (there's 3 arrows on the recycle symbol for a reason!), and I'm concerned that a lot of the focus for green stuff has shifted to only the last R. They're big fighters against the Right To Repair, meaning, they are against Reduce. They also really lock down the OS (especially on iPhones) meaning it is difficult to Reuse.
I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I'm now mostly on Apple (Air for laptop, switched to iPhone this month, but main machine is Linux). I switched because privacy, but I'm also mad about this loss (I felt that they have won, especially with overcharging...): But my old laptops? They become servers or machines I give to others. My old phones? Same thing. Your old phone is probably more powerful than a raspberry pi and comes with a battery backup, microphone, camera, and other things you might want. This is the __Reuse__ part of all of this.
Here's the thing Apple:
That second point is tied in, and important for the reuse aspect. And you know what? I'm willing to bet that if Apple does this, they would actually make more money (as the video joked about). Because this is a big reason people turned to Apple in the first place. Because the machines lasted longer, people were willing to pay more. Programmers preferred them because they were the most linux like.You were the first trillion dollar company, the first 2 trillion dollar company, and the first 3 trillion dollar company. But you're losing your place. It's time to think different.
They don't want to "go green", they want to maximize profits, as any other corporation. They just need to have a good enough reputation to make sure environmentally-conscious people don't boycott their products. Anything more than that would have a negative effect on their bottom line, so you can be sure they're not going to do it.
Small companies like Framework and Fairphone proved that you can make very repairable and reusable laptops and phones without sacrificing much in the way of form factor (since this used to be the biggest excuse). I think it's safe to say big manufacturers won't follow suit unless forced by legislation.
Worth noting - this is not a m.2 adapter, you couldn't use it to attach standard drives. This is an adapter for fitting proprietary flash cards with NAND on.
This is super impressive! It's a cool POC, although it is already clear that it would be feasible for Apple to put M.2 slots in Macbooks if they wanted to.
I wonder how much it would cost to have someone replace the BGA NAND chips in my Macbook. Apple charges $6-800 for a 2TB upgrade for a Macbook (depending on whether it's a 250 or 500GB drive originally). Someone would have to be able to do it for like $2-300 for it to be a feasible upgrade, especially considering that my warranty would be void. I assume there are people overseas who could do it cheaply. I assume it would be fairly quick for someone who knows what they are doing.
M.2 slots? M.2 SSDs have drive controllers on them, but in the Apple Silicon world, those controllers are integrated in the SoC.
They should absolutely not reuse the slot type for incompatible products.
They should make one though, their storage offerings are lame.
Consider that by the time you’ve ran out of storage you may have also ran out of your warranty.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41971060
Ok, so you upgraded the storage, but most of these as well use soldered memory too, not to mention a _lot_ of these ship with _only_ base 8gb of ram. I imagine they'll run out of ram at some point, when apple will deprecate even m1-3 "low-end" 8gb macs to obscurity with the intel variants now that their low-end is 16gb.
How much is too much to upgrade a system vs replacing it and paying more apple tax?
Better ROI making them run linux in a less-needy desktop environment than trying to keep them usable as a mac with macos.
I agree with your sentiment and wanted to point out that for the RAM it's even worse than the storage. The RAM is not soldered on the board, its included in the package with the CPU, which makes upgrading the RAM effectively impossible for these machines.
Back in 2021 some guys in China claimed to have been able to upgrade the PoP RAM on a base M1 to 16GB: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/06/m1-mac-ram-and-ssd-upgr...
I remember when this came out, but more recently I recall finding something indicating that this was either untrue or pointless-- for example, while the ICs can be changed out, either the SoC or board knows what SKU it is due to an e-fuse or config locked into a cryptographically-signed firmware package, and refuses to address a different amount of RAM. I can't find that reference, however.
No, the storage is worse, because there’s no reason why they couldn’t include a standard 2230 M.2 slot on all their motherboards, for anyone who wanted to upgrade.
The fixed RAM is annoying, but is done to make the product better — the packaging allows the RAM to be significantly faster than otherwise. It’s a major reason why the M-series CPU and GPU performs so well.
It’s the same reason why you don’t see slotted RAM on GPUs. The performance penalty would be great enough that nobody would buy them.
Agree that it does make the product better, though if they put their RAM chips soldered on the board instead of in package, it would allow repair or upgrade without sacrificing the whole CPU unit.
GPUs do not put their RAM in the same package as the processor itself, and it does not sacrifice a significant amount of performance.
The M-series processors' primary benefit by a huge margin is its architecture that allows a higher memory bandwidth than say SODIMMs and that benefit is independent of the choice to put the RAM in the package.