top | item 41984668

(no title)

wpwpwpw | 1 year ago

As usual, no upgradability. There's evidence that it's possible with SSDs with no loss of performance. Probably the same would apply to memory, maybe with replaceable memory chips and a simple switch. More future landfill material.

discuss

order

llm_nerd|1 year ago

>More future landfill material.

I wish Apple devices were more upgradable (and cheaper and more fixable), but I would speculate that Apple devices are the last devices to end up in a landfill (or more aptly, recycled). If you outgrow a device there is a very robust resale market and that machine will happily fill someone else's needs.

Apple devices seem to stay in use for an eternity.

spiderfarmer|1 year ago

I used to upgrade my Mac mini every time a new one came out. The resale value was amazing.

infecto|1 year ago

Are we going to hear this for every product release ad nauseam forever? Not sure about you but at least for myself, I always trade-in/recycle my products with Apple which I hope closes the loop as close as possible.

richwater|1 year ago

Yes because it's so ridiculous to call it a professional machine and not let people put in their own RAM and instead charge $200+ for 8GB

kissiel|1 year ago

On a desktop computer it's not as bothersome to have an NVME plugged in to one of the thunderbolt ports.

Longlius|1 year ago

Thunderbolt is significantly slower than gen 4 NVME. In the PC world, gen 3 speeds are considered an extreme budget-tier option these days.

buildbot|1 year ago

It does not apply to memory. It’s much harder to maintain signal integrity. 200+ 4GHz signals.

wpwpwpw|1 year ago

If a CPU is socket-able, so should memory chips be.

wmf|1 year ago

LPCAMM2 solves this.

piva00|1 year ago

> Probably the same would apply to memory, maybe with replaceable memory chips

The memory chip is embedded in the SoC, how do you envision a way to do replacement of memory chips with this design/architecture?

jsheard|1 year ago

As discussed in the iMac thread yesterday, LPCAMM2 makes it possible. There are LPCAMM2 modules with the same 7500 MT/s spec as the M4s integrated memory, and two of them running in parallel would match the M4 Pro.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/21390/micron-ships-crucialbra...

Even if Apple wanted to support modular memory, which they obviously don't, the ultra-tiny form factor of the new Mini would probably still rule it out though. Soldering the memory down is still more compact.

wpwpwpw|1 year ago

I am not talking about DIMMs. Talking about the chips themselves. I am pretty sure they don't make different APUs for different memory sizes, it's just a fuse or something like that. If CPUs can use sockets, so do memory chips.

massysett|1 year ago

For drives at least, the upgrade path is the USB-C port.

999900000999|1 year ago

I don't think these even boot once the SSDs die.

Apple knows how to make money, I can buy a quality 4TB Nvme for 300$( you can definitely go lower if you want to risk it ). The upgrade to 4TB on the M4 Pro Mini is 1200$(it's not supported on the base model) , on top of 1400$ for the actual computer.

It I had to guess, most of Apple's margin is on users riding the pricing ladder up into the stratosphere.

I had an experience a few years ago at an Apple store, where this clerk refuse to sell me the cheapest m1 MacBook Air. There's probably some direction from up top which is trying convince people they need the more expensive Macs.

PaulRobinson|1 year ago

Wow, are you still using your original 386DX board, with minor upgrades along the way? /s

I actually think Apple's way of managing upgrades isn't as harsh as many people think.

The first thing to get to sustainability is to use less. If you don't need the hardware to make hardware easily upgradable, you simplify the hardware and use less of it. This is one of the reasons Apple do it.

Secondly, they're using a lot of recycled material in this thing. Their lede line on it is that its carbon neutral. Show me another desktop PC like this that can make that claim.

Thirdly, the "half-life" of a Mac is kind of insane. When I was buying Thinkpads, Dells, and the like, I'd get 2-3 years down the line and I'd "need" to upgrade the whole thing. I've got a 2017 Mac Mini, and an 2015 MBP in regular use. I have a G4 iBook that was in active use by my parents from 2004 until _this Spring_ - they only gave it up because they couldn't upgrade Chrome on it any more, so it's about to become a retro Linux term for me, because the hardware is still sound (albeit too under-powered for anything modern).

And lastly, they take old hardware in and recycle it back into the new stuff in the first step. They give relatively decent trade-in prices, and are one of the few consumer brands doing that.

Given that they're shipping it with 16GB of RAM, which is fine for my needs, I think I'm confident in saying I could buy one, use it for 5-8 years, and then get it recycled when I upgrade at that point, while most PCs with upgradable RAM being sold today are going to landfill within 4 years, perhaps.

shantara|1 year ago

I think you’re giving PCs way too little credit compared to Macs. AM4 motherboards from 2017 can have 5800x3d or 5700x3d CPU installed, the former of which is still #2 in the majority of gaming benchmarks beating anything Intel can offer for a fraction of price and power consumed.

seec|1 year ago

A 2004 G4 iBook has been unsupported for any software for decades, let alone Chrome who was first released in 2008. I don't know if they actually ever made an official PPC version of Chrome but I doubt it.

You are a liar but a bad one.

You can like Macs, you can prefer it, you can rationalise the added cost any way you want. But the fact is, Macs do not have any more useful life than PCs if your price matches them. You play the role of the typical Apple fanboy who compares a 1.5k MacBook to a random crappy Lenovo that was on sale for less than 500. The Mac is better/longer lasting. It's almost as if price convey some sort of information on quality...