Yesterday, we showed you how to upgrade late model MacBooks with a 480GB or 1TB SSD. In some cases these upgrades might yield eight times the original capacity of the machine’s internal storage.
While it’s certainly nice to have the option of upgrading, such enhancements do come with downsides. First, there’s the price: it’s $600 to upgrade to a 1TB drive. Second, the upgrade breaks Boot Camp support.
But $600 is relatively cheap when you compare what it costs to score a MacBook with a 1TB SSD. MacBooks feature faster PCIe storage, but it’s still a high price to pay for something so vital — and so cheap by today’s standards.
Apple’s MacBook line has an issue with internal flash storage prices. It’s a problem that continues to worsen, especially as Apple has made it increasingly difficult for users to upgrade.
The raw numbers
I took some time and placed storage figures and corresponding prices into a spreadsheet for Apple’s entire MacBook line that uses SSDs exclusively. This eliminates the holdover 13″ MacBook Pro without a Retina display.
To gather these figures, I simply ventured over to Apple’s website and placed the numbers in a spreadsheet. For each data point, I took the path of least resistance (read: cheapest) option. For example, with the 15″ MacBook Pro with Retina display, there are actually two ways to get to 512GB of storage. You can upgrade the 256GB base model to 512GB for $300, or you can buy the 512GB model for $200 more than that. The 512GB model features a faster processor and discrete graphics, but since I only care about storage for this example, I selected the upgraded model to be fair since it saves $200.
| BASE PRICE | 256GB | 512GB | 1TB | MAX STORAGE PRICE | COST PER GB (MAX STORAGE UPGRADE PRICE/MAX STORAGE) | PREMIUM PERCENTAGE OF ORIGINAL PRICE (MAX STORAGE UPGRADE PRICE/BASE PRICE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11” MacBook Air | $899.00 | $200.00 | $500.00 | – | $1,399.00 | $0.98 | 56% |
| 13” MacBook Air | $999.00 | $200.00 | $500.00 | – | $1,499.00 | $0.98 | 50% |
| 12” MacBook | $1299.00 | – | $300.00 | – | $1,599.00 | $0.59 | 23% |
| 13″ MacBook Pro with Retina display | $1299.00 | $200.00 | $500.00 | $1,000.00 | $2,299.00 | $0.98 | 77% |
| 15″ MacBook Pro with Retina display | $1999.00 | – | $300.00 | $800.00 | $2,799.00 | $0.78 | 40% |
Note that all of the data in this post is only considering storage space. Apple provides additional performance incentives with its flash storage upgrades, but since this post is solely about storage and possible configurations, all other performance enhancements have been ignored for the sake of this exercise.
The numbers are certainly intriguing. Here are seven interesting points that we can extrapolate from this data:
- The 13″ MacBook Pro with Retina display has the worst PPOP (Premium Percentage of Original Price). This is the percentage of a maxed out machine from a pure storage perspective versus the original base model price. For example, the 13″ MacBook Pro can be maxed out to 1TB for a minimum of $1,000. That is 77% of the original base model price. In other words, you’re almost paying enough (77%) to buy another 13″ base model MacBook Pro in order to up the storage to 1TB. This makes it, by far, the worst MacBook to max out in the entire lineup in terms of price.
- The 12″ MacBook is actually a fairly decent deal to max out its storage. Maxed out storage only goes up to 512GB, but that’s only 23% of the original base model price vs 50% for the 13″ MacBook Air for the same amount of storage. The 12″ MacBook’s PPOG is the best among all MacBooks in the lineup.
- In order to upgrade any MacBook in Apple’s entire lineup to 1TB, you’ll need to spend $800 extra over the base price at minimum. I understand that Apple uses high quality flash storage that’s fast, but that premium is massive.
- The only MacBooks capable of being upgraded to 1TB are the models from its Pro line. Lesser models are stuck with a max of 512GB.
- The Cost Per GB (Premium Differential) is the max storage upgrade price divided by the amount of storage. Three of the MacBooks in Apple’s lineup come with a Premium Differential of around $0.98/GB. If this report by ComputerWorld is to be believed, then Apple’s SSD storage prices for these upgrades are hovering around 2012 levels.
- The 12″ MacBook, again, stands out as different. The $0.59 Premium Differential is 40% below the levels of every other MacBook in the lineup. Again, the 12″ MacBook doesn’t feature a 1TB option, but it still stands out as being a pretty good deal relative to Apple’s other asking prices.
- MacBooks with prices in the 256GB field are MacBooks that feature a paltry 128GB of base storage. In 2016, there’s simply no way around stating that this is absurd.
Of course, considering that we’re ignoring another major piece of the puzzle — the other performance improvements that come with such price increases — such data is worthy of an asterisk. It simply highlights the need for more flexible storage upgrade options in Apple’s MacBook line.
I believe that if I want 1TB of storage in my base model 13″ MacBook, and nothing else, I shouldn’t have to pay $1,000 for the option. It’s like needing to buy a car that seats four, but having to pay for an 8-cylinder engine just to get there.
Ways to improve storage options
I understand that Apple is looking to squeeze every ounce of value from its lineup, but I think some compromises could be made for the sake of the customer. I also understand that Apple uses high quality components in its machines; look no further than the read/write speed comparisons between OWC’s third-party SSD and the stock SSDs that ship with the latest MacBooks.
I don’t mind that Apple wants to charge a premium for its components. I just wish that it wouldn’t require customers to purchase more machine than necessary just to satisfy storage needs. Apple, make it easier for your customers to upgrade to 512GB or 1TB of storage. Don’t make us pay 77% of the value of the original base model just to have enough storage space for our needs. The cost per gigabyte for three of Apple’s max storage upgrades is running at nearly $1.00 USD. Even for premium components, that’s a little on the high side. The 12″ MacBook comes in at a more modest $0.59 per gigabyte for max storage, so we know that there’s some wiggle room to be had here.
I’m not expecting Apple to just give away storage capacity. This is an area that it has exploited for years, but we’re not talking about $100 incremental storage upgrades featured on its iPads or iPhones — we’re talking about $1,000 storage upgrades. In 2016, it’s time for a change.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
More like Apple has a money problem.
Apple branded 1TB PCI3.0 SSDs can be found on eBay for about $200-300 cheaper than the Apple price. They are pulled from other MacBooks and are usually brand new (unused).
Why would one want to pull the 1TB SSD and sell it separately? Are they replacing with a 2TB version? Are those even available? Maybe the part is pulled from a stolen laptop and they can’t sell the laptop as a unit, but they can sell the parts by themselves and no one is going to know the difference. Yeah, if it’s stolen, then of course it would be cheaper. :-)
It’s probably directly from the OEM (ie. Samsung) bought at reseller pricing. Just a guess.
But But But. Phil Schiller said “Consumers who don’t want to pay more for local storage can buy the cheapest storage model and buy iCloud storage to store their stuff on, that way all their music, photos and videos are available everywhere without taking up local storage”
Because we live in a world where everyone gets 500GB/month of cellular data for free and 4G is available EVERYWHERE right? Slap that Philly
Indeed, while I get his point if we’re going be fully mobile with a laptop then that includes the bevy of work we will be doing while we may not have Internet access; that necessitates things being easier in the arena of local storage.
Isn’t Schiller a tool? This is also the guy who said that NFC was basically worthless then 1+ yr later launched an ENTIRE ePay platform based on NFC.
Um. Here’s what Apple was looking at. How long did it take for Apple to get thousands of businesses to adopt ApplePay? they are STILL signing up businesses/banks throughout the world and it’s STILL going to take several years until ApplePay is offered at every bank and retail business. The thing that happened on Android was that their mobile pay system wasn’t secure and there were hacks within a short period of time and even a few years later there were more NFC hacks for Android. Apple didn’t want to just put in NFC until they had developed ApplePay and had figured out how to roll it out to enough businesses and banks to make it useful. That took them a few years to develop the technology, which was based on their fingerprint sensor tech, and they had to contact banks and some businesses before the roll out of ApplePay and NFC enabled devices. So Apple’s wait and further develop was the reason for their delay and it was the wise decision.
What I find is that Google, just throws features and technology without THINKING things through and ensuring that the new feature is useful, easy to use, secure. Android had a facial recognition password many years ago, but it sucked. If Apple does it, they will HOPEFULLY offer it where it doesn’t suck. some Android phones had fingerprint scanner on their smartphones, but they didn’t work well and it sucked, which is why it went away and Apple was the one that came out with Fingerprint technology that actually worked well.
Just because a company comes out with a technology or feature first doesn’t mean it’s better. Sometimes it is, but in the case of Android, it typically isn’t since they don’t spend enough time to ensure that it’s secure, properly implemented, easy to use, etc. Look at bumping phone with NFC? Even though it’s there doesn’t mean people actually use it. Apple didn’t want to have a bump phone with NFC, as they did Air Drop, which works better and doesn’t require NFC. The problem is that you don’t want NFC exposed like Android, their implementation isn’t that secure and they’ve already had several hacks, which Apple hasn’t had. So, sometimes, it’s better to first think of the usefulness, the ease of use, and the security aspects of the feature/technology, instead of just trying to be first to market. That’s the big difference between Apple and how Google and even Microsoft do things. Yeah, sometimes Apple does come out with something new first, but they typically at least do a better implementation. Thunderbolt 1 is one of those technologies that Apple implemented first and better than Windows. Now there is Thunderbolt 3, which Windows has adopted, but Thunderbolt 3 devices aren’t being released yet, so even though your computer has it, doesn’t mean you are going to use it. Right now, most TB devices are TB 1 and TB 2. i think the reason why Apple’s waiting is that the drivers are being written and since they have a lot of new computers that are going to be released in the second half of the year, I think they are just making sure the new drivers actually work, which Microsoft hasn’t done a great job since there are devices that simply don’t work with Windows. Oops. The same thing happened when USB first hit the market. PCs had USB 1 that came with their computers, but Microsoft didn’t support it, but when Apple released computers with USB, theirs actually worked and it took Microsoft a little longer to get USB support with Windows.
So getting back to the point that Shiller made. I think he was right at the time he made the statement. When Android had NFC, I asked every single person that I knew at the time that had an Android phone with NFC, every single person I asked didn’t know they had NFC, and/or didn’t know what NFC was, did or even had the ability to use it for mobile payment. So, yes, in the beginning, I think it was just useless from a mass adoption. Even several years later, MOST people don’t even use NFC, a few of us have adopted it as a means to pay for things, but it’s STILL not widely adopted where it’s replaces pulling out cash or a CC. Apple is STILL rolling out ApplePay around the world. There are many places that haven’t adopted it yet. But where it is available, not everyone with a smartphone actually uses it. It takes time, and in this case, it could easily take 10 years for the masses to adopt using NFC on a daily basis.
Rich, I realize Apple Pay as an ecosystem is much more than NFC, nevertheless, he basically poo-poo’d the entire technology then choose that as their foundation protocol for Apple Pay…
Not to mention, in these times, I don’t think the average person is comfortable with cloud storage anymore.
I could be wrong, but I certainly am NOT comfortable with it; at all.
Unfortunately, I also made the mistake of buying a 128GB model and thought that I would just use local NAS storage to offset it…
Too bad some apps I use (like Quicktime for example) automatically cache uncompressed video on the local drive, with no setting to change that behavior!
So every time I use Quicktime to make a screen recording, it’s putting multiple GBs of uncompressed video to an SSD, then deleting it when the video gets compressed…Do that about 10 times, for each screen recording you make…Great way to wear out an SSD.
Sigh…
1TB of iCloud storage is $9.95/month US. That’s $1200/yr. So 1TB locally would pay for itself in a year. And you get the advantage of transfer speeds in the megabytes/sec range, instead of megabits/sec, no data overages, and less security risk.
You might want to check your math.
No. What Apple has a serious fucking attitude problem. Justifying these storages with their cloud bs. Apple has becoming or is becoming just like blackberry. Refusing to leave their comfort zone
I don’t know what you mean by that statement? The article is discussing SSD storage within the laptop, not Cloud storage.
The issue is that this extends throughout their lineup including iPhone. Phil Schiller keeps re iterating that those who need more storage can just use iCloud for all their needs. They are fooling themselves into thinking that iCloud suffices for everyone. Don’t be surprised when we end up with another 16gig iPhone next year
Just use an external Drive,god damnit.Or get the late 2012 MacBook Pro, and update it to a SLOW 5400RPM hdd 2TB
I just don’t download video, which is what takes up most of the room. I think people should be looking at streaming video instead of trying to collect it by downloading it from some torrent site. I think the people that get the most pissed off are just going to Torrent sites and downloading all of their audio/video content for free because they are too cheap to just buy a streaming service or rent the video, which doesn’t require lots of storage. I think the days of collecting the actual content is slowing moving away due to streaming services. Other than that, people need to do some storage management and just offload the crap they aren’t using to an external drive, NAS, etc.. I guess people like to hoard content and carry it around on their laptop for no reason. :-)
As I stated earlier, this is not without it’s own set of cons, as some apps (Quicktime for example) will ONLY cache data on the internal hard drive
In the case of Quicktime, it stores multiple GB uncompressed video files on the main OS drive / internal SSD, and then erases them when you are finished, and go to export / compress it…What a brilliant way to wear out an SSD and kill the write performance, by writing 20+ GB uncompressed video, deleting it, then repeating every time you use Quicktime to do a screen capture or capture from an external video source. That’s just one example.
And no, there is no option to tell it to cache to an external disk or even an alternate location.
For the price Apple charges for MacBooks. Apple can afford to give us way more for our money. 16gb iDevices are currently on life support.
Once your customers are loyal enough you can take full advantage of them
“all other performance enhancements have been ignored for the sake of this exercise.”
Then this is a pointless comparison/post.
If performance yo be ignored, then why don’t you just compare the SSD prices with regular hard-drive prices? I can get 3TB hard-drive for $100, so Apple is greedy. :rolleyes:
“Don’t make us pay 77% of the value of the original base model just to have enough storage space for our needs.”
Then buy an external hard drive. Apple doesn’t tell you not to do that. You don’t care about performance, right?
Dell charges $420 to upgrade the XPS13 form 512GB to 1TB SSD, so Apple’s $500 price (to go from 512GB to 1TB SSD) is not so strange. Yeah it’s more, but not like double the competitors or anything.
There are plenty of customers who don’t need the extra performance, but need the storage. Storage != performance in its the rawest definition. I think it’s fully relevant.
However aren’t the 512GB ssd’s faster than the 256Gb ones?
Dell Uses Sm951 way faster than Apple’s custom Pcie 2.0X4 solution with lower IOPS compared to SM951 or 950 Pro
The SM951 on the Dell XPS Machines is PCI Express 3.0 based.
The XPS also has Thunderbolt 3.
Oops…Guess Apple has been left behind in the dust.
Ehem… Dell’s XPS13 is using newer AND faster storage…So if you want to go making comparisons like that…It also has a touch screen option AND has thunderbolt 3.0!
No one is loyal forever. Tons of Android phone users love there Macs.Tons of iDevice users love Windows. Problem is Windows 10 / PC isn’t the optional solution to replace your Mac. Even if it’s a much cheaper option. I’m not knocking windows. It’s just most Mac users won’t switch to Windows just to save money. Apple knows this well.
Yes, Apple definitely benefits from the fact that lots of people hate Windows and have had bad experiences with Windows laptops from Dell, HP et al in the past. My last Windows laptop was a Dell ‘ultrabook’ and it sucked. The fans would spin up like crazy just because the screen saver came on (seriously), it was usually hot enough to fry an egg, the trackpad was cramped and awful, the speakers were a joke, and the battery was roughly half what Dell claimed and advertised (compare with MacBooks, where my experience is that battery life is at least equal to and sometimes exceeds what Apple advertises). So regardless of whether I prefer OS X to Windows (I do, but Windows isn’t as bad as it used to be), Apple’s hardware is so much superior that it makes the OS decision a moot point. I’d rather run Windows on a MacBook than buy another Dell (so I do, thanks to Parallels).
So consider me sceptical when the Microsoft fanboys in my IT department keep telling me that the new Windows laptops are now ‘way better’ than MacBooks. Definitely not the Surface, which is basically a tablet running PC software, ugh. My boss got one, and returned it a few weeks later, having decided that she preferred her old Windows laptop with a proper keyboard. Or the SurfaceBook, which is a novelty laptop pretending to be a tablet by virtue of a detachable screen which runs out of battery before you can finish watching a movie. I know, I know, some people love them some Surfaces, and get angry when you criticise them, but they just don’t float my boat, and it’s not because I’m anti-Microsoft (I’m one of the 5% who actually bought a Windows Phone).
And I don’t want a touchscreen laptop either; I like to keep my hands on the keyboard and trackpad, so these new ‘hybrid’ things don’t interest me at all. Anyway, back to the point, which is: it feels like Apple is cruising in this space against weak competitors who have soiled their reputation with previous subpar products. Maybe it’s true that Dell is suddenly churning out amazing laptops, but why would I believe that after my last experience which followed similar promises? Maybe Google will bring some stronger competition in consumer laptops, if they do something a bit more interesting with Chromebooks (merging with Android and adding more/better local storage, for example, plus some nicer hardware like the Pixel). Google does have a bit more of a ‘cool factor’ than Microsoft, and a lot of people are heavy users of Google services. I hope so, because competition is good for the consumer, and I think Apple is probably complacent as a result of being so dominant in the mid-to-high-end consumer laptop market, at least here in the US.
Ericsking instead of using parallels use boot camp. When you use parallels, system resources are bogged down by having two operating systems open simultaneously and graphics are nowhere near to standards of today. Use boot camp and you will notice a huge increase in performance
I don’t think they should delve into different performance speeds on the same devices but keeping the same price per GB across all the lines would be a positive. At 59¢, the 1TB upgrade would be just about $450-$600 (Depending on wether you are multiplying by the difference in storage space or the total amount given). That is justifiable to me, personally and would be okay with that if I was needing something with that much flash storage.
It’s almost better to buy entry level and put the extra towards 10 years of iCloud storage….almost…. ;)
One major flaw with that strategy is that there’s no Selective Sync with iCloud Drive. If you get the 1TB plan and fill it up, you can’t sync at all with only a 128GB or 512GB Mac.
We all use our gear differently, but in the cloud storage age, i have never run out of storage, With Google and MS offering free and cheap storage that is safer than I could keep it, I am more than good.
Granted I do not do video or graphics work or store movies on my machine.
True, we are approaching the cloud age … but its bandwidth, latency, and cost are all factors which don’t yet make it a suitable replacement for merely having more local data storage, especially when one’s ISP can cap you at 300GB/month: it would really suck to have to take three (3) months to restore a 1TB machine from a cloud backup.
The simple bottom line here is that solid state storage does cost more than spinning disks, but adding an interface that’s faster than SATA isn’t something that scales with the capacity. As such, the interface is already baked into the MSRP of the base model and the incremental cost of going from 256 to 512 to 1TB is still predominantly just the commodity cost for the component chips: using classical SATA SSD retail prices, one can get a 1TB today for $400, which also implies that a 256 is worth $100 and a 512 is worth $200, so the upgrade price for (256 –> 512) is only $100, and (256 –> 1TB) is only $300 … and these are both already based on retail prices, so there’s already some profit built in. Even if we assume that Apple deserves a 30% margin over these values, they only rise to $130 and $390 … which illustrates that Apple’s markups are actually more like 150%. Value fail.
@Jeff Benjamin
I just voted “No, Apple provides plenty of storage for the money” because as long as you provide enthusiast reviews for every new apple product, your opinion will encourage both customers and apple itself to remain in this Golden Confort zone and nothing will change.
Let’s hope the MacBook 12 inch is leading the way; 256gb on base model, 512gb on the step up model. Then 1TB as a BTO for the pros.
The Problem is Storage Speeds have been increasing greatly( Samsung’s OEM MLC SM961 SSD is PCIe 3.0 x4 drive with read speeds of 3200 megaBYTES per second and Write speeds of 2000 megaBYTES per second with 450000 IOPS ( basically Higher the better) and encryption support for about 350-400$ to OEMs but apple still uses older Pcie 2.0 X4 storage which is surpassed by newer drives in XPS 15 and add to that fact performance on Apple’s drive is not keeping up with other companies makes it a cause of concern especially for Pros who use 15 inch Macbook pros
A quick check on Amazon show most PCIE SSDs going for around 90¢ per gigabyte. So really Apple isn’t that overpriced and you can’t even compare the flash storage in Macs to 2.5″ SATA SSDs which go for around 50¢ or less a gigabyte.
More like ~$0.60 http://amzn.to/2347Ypo
I suspect this is how Apple makes a majority of their money.
On the iOS device range, the price per GB is atrocious.
I wish you would have included those devices in this comparison.
Keep in mind they buy these SSDs directly from OEMs in bulk for huge discounts also.
I don’t mind them starting with low storage amounts in the entry level products, because believe it or not, some people really don’t need much storage (I always use my dad as an example – he definitely doesn’t need more than 128GB on his computer, or more than 16GB on his phone). But because a lot, perhaps MOST, people do need more storage, they should have a more reasonable price scale to the next levels. It’s the price gouging which bothers me, not the fact that they offer 128GB and 16GB laptops/phones.
It’s pretty ridiculous also that installing a 3rd party hard drive breaks bootcamp support.
Why is this anyway? Like what is the reason, technically?
I haven’t used BootCamp in a long time but if I remember right, so long as the storage adapter has an EFI driver you should be able to boot from anything, including external storage. I one time did a FibreChannel SAN boot for a client on a Mac Pro with BootCamp.
The reason Bootcamp no longer works with these new SSD upgrades from OWC is because it is actually two drives running in RAID, and appearing as an external hard drive. From day one, Bootcamp cannot install Windows on an external hard drive. Since the upgrade appears as an external drive, Bootcamp won’t work, and there is no way around it.
Bootcamp absolutely can install to an external drive…
I’ve done it myself, as I stated.
I installed Windows on a Mac Pro to a LUN from a FibreChannel SAN.
The SAN adapter needs an EFI driver; as long as it has that, BootCamp will let you install into that location, no problem.
I have a mid 2014 rMBP with 0.5 Tbyte original, El Capitan and Windows 10 on a 50 Gbyte partition. Does anyone know if I can backup the Windows partition with Winclone and restore to a 100 Gbyte partition on the OWC upgrade?
I’m hoping to upgrade my MBP this year, but if there’s no 2TB+ storage option, I’m going to have to wait another year. So easy to add more storage to my 2011.
Dude, I’m with you on wanting an upgrade, but did you read the article? I can’t even imagine how much a 2TB SSD from Apple would cost…
Your 2011 MacBook Pro has a legacy SATA-III bus. An SSD reads and writes about 500MB/second, which is not bad for a SATA-based SSD. The SSDs in the current MacBook Pros can read and write 1.5GB/second. Yes, they are that fast. The Samsung 850 EVO and Pro 2TB SSDs range from $600 to $875. Are you really going to spend more than the value of your 5 year old MacBook Pro to replace the drive with a 2TB SSD?
I have a 1TB SSD and a 1TB spinner in my MBP. What I’m saying is I’ll need a 2TB option to realistically buy a new single-drive machine and retain my data. I don’t want to put everything in the cloud, and this is my primary machine so it’s not like I can offload to my “main” desktop machine with many TBs of data or whatever (I have a 2009 mini but that’s just a media/file server). Yes the new 2TB drives are around $600 now but prices are dropping due to advancements in the tech, so I’m also saying the MBP is ripe for a 2TB storage option in the next ten, and hopefully at a “realistic” pricing premium in BTO models. So what I’m saying is I’ll gladly spring for a maxed out 2TB BTO 15″ MBP this year if it exists, and if it doesn’t, I’m going to have to reconsider upgrading this year.
^ that should say “next gen” not “next ten” :)
All Apple needs to do here is keep the upgrade charges competitive. In the 12″ MacBook, $300 gets you a processor speed bump and the 512GB SSD. Microsoft is asking $1699 (a $400 price hike) to get the 512GB SSD – and that’s has the same CPU and before the $129 to get a fracking keyboard.
Apple just needs to pay attention to what PC vendors are doing these days and be competitive. That is all.
Why, so they can build cheap shit like Microsoft? I don’t see Microsoft products flying off the store shelves.
You should check out the recent Dell XPS laptops…
They are really blowing Macs out of the water in terms of specs and pricing; the only con of course is Windows, but I suspect j33t0 users will install OSx86.
Their SSDs are way faster than what Apple uses, PCIe 3.0 based, they have just as good if not better displays, and they also have Thunderbolt 3.0.
same problem on desktop: no iMac/mini/pro with more than 3TB when 6TB have been around for more than a year and 4TB for years….
If you like using a slow spinning hard drive, be my guest.
With ZFS you can easily create your own hybrid drive / caching solution, using a spinning drive along with a fast SSD.
I don’t think there is a working ZFS port for OS X, but I’m sure there has to be some other solution out there to do this.
The MacBook Pro 15″ Retina with integrated graphics offers an $800 1TB option, but the MacBook Pro 15″ Retina with the dedicated graphics card (which most prefer) has the 1TB option for $500, which is $100 less than the OWC upgrade. Even the MacBook Pro 13″ upper model has the 1TB option for $500. The author should have specified that in the article. I would rather have the wicked fast 1TB option from Apple instead of an upgrade that is partially compatible. Shop at B&H and sometimes the build-to-order models are on sale. I saved $300 on mine.
TLDR: Apple doesn’t have affordable ssd prices.
I installed a 480GB OWC Aura Pro in my MacBook Pro retina and no issues installing boot amp or using my copy of Windows 10 – in fact it works better than ever
While I would LOVE more storrage on my MacBook Pro, 256GB has served me very well. I have just learned to manage my storage more efficently. With that said I will be upgrading my SSD to 512 GB as soon as I have the cash.
I feel like, at least after upgrading to the OWC, that 480GB is indeed a sweet spot. I think it’s much more manageable for my workflow than 256. Would still love to have 1TB though.
If apple are going to prevent the ability to upgrade at home, then they need to ship with more.
Most people are unsure how much space they may or may not need – which they really shouldnt have to worry about at the start… on top of that apple laptop are already expensive, so having to considering whether or not that extra large chunk or money will be well spent is very difficult.
Personally i used the main storage for the apps, and external drives for saving data.
There is also icloud – but it’s not as integrated as it should be… when i bought the surface 2 it came with 250gb of online storage – but it was also easier to save work to the cloud because it was built into the apps.
Unless you are going to be using a large about of data and need it with you on your machine – then go for the lower storage option and save to the cloud or external drive…. i refuse to give apple a crap load more of money when im already spending a premium amount.
You know, when it comes to price, most of the time Apple is just an arrogant asshole.
You know, when it comes to money, most of the time Apple is just an arrogant asshole.
Oh, so I go and work somewhere remote with my trusty MacBook and just have to hook in to iCloud to retrieve my data? Yeah right, in Borneo, the Gobi desert (I have worked these places). Get real Apple. not everyone lives and works in a city with fibre broadband, ac WiFi. and 4G phones
Next article will be “Apple’s MacBook line has a graphics processing problem”. Their GPU options are truly pathetic.
Followed by “Apple’s MacBook line has a software problem”. Retarded software like iWork, Photos, that used to be good. I don’t want to report a report in dumbed down software on my iPhone for God’s sake.
With declining profits and sales Apple needs to wake up and listen to their customers. They don’t always know what we want or need.
Waterproof phones, cutting edge and capable software, large SSD and RAM, fast GPUs, other companies are leaving Apple behind on many fronts. As the saying goes, the first generation makes the business (Jobs & Co); the second keeps it going, the third loses it. Apple have skipped ahead to enter stage three.
Phil Schiller has implied that the MacBook is an experimental product which isn’t necessarily for everyone, and I think he’s right. I think it’s also the shape of things to come, and it will become more powerful and mainstream in the future once higher-spec hardware shrinks down in size and reduces its power requirements. Who knows, maybe they’ll even add more ports to it, but I wouldn’t hold my breath!
The MacBook Pro, however, has an SD card slot (I put a low-profile transcend 256 GB card in it to offload bloated iOS apps, media files, etc.) as well as a discrete GPU – I highly recommend the Pro for those who aren’t willing to compromise on features just to get something that is thinner, lighter, and cheaper.
Apple rarely competes on a feature-by-feature basis (though sometimes they are drastically ahead of the curve in one or two areas) – and they are constantly trying to “simplify” computing, for better and sometimes for worse. Whether this strategy – which Jobs is probably largely to blame for – will continue to succeed in the future remains to be seen.
Jobs also said something like “customers don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” I would expect that Apple will continue to largely ignore its customers just as they always have.
even worse when you imac has a ssd firmware bug and a replacement (which is not really necessary) costs a fortune… See
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7543327?searchText=bug%20firmware
My 2c: I’m still using a Mid2012 Macbook Pro (no retina), which have have stuffed with 16GB RAM and a 256GB SSD/1TB HD Fusion drive, replacing the Superdrive. Oh, and it has a high-res display (1680 by what? 900 or so? pixels) and a frigging GLAREFREE display. I’m seriously considering upgrading to a 2TB SSD, because I’m constantly running out of space, which is mostly shared by pictures, iTunes and various virtual machines. I’d love to shell out a small fortune for a comparable laptop with modern specs, but as a german tech podcast recently stated, Apple currently just has no laptops in it’s lineup that are worth buying. I totally agree. The Retina laptops with their mirror displays have no reasonable way to add enough disk space, the Airs don’t even have the Retina display and the 12″ is a joke anyhow, unless you only need a portable typewriter.
So it seems Apple has found the holy grail of computer manufacturers: a lineup of machines that people want to have, which cannot upgraded in any way and that still costs a fortune. I guess congratulations are in order.
Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. It’s bothering me.
I’m with you in seeking a 2TB solution for my late 2013 MacBook Pro Retina AND a 4TB solution for my Mac Pro. I can buy the 4TB today, but until Samsung’s recent announcement I had not found another 2TB solution. The question for me is when will other Manufacturers come in with a high performance 2TB SSD that fits in and is compatible with a MacBook Pro.
iCloud and all other web based solution are close to useless for me where I shoot photos and vids, we only have Internet via Satellite this is reserved for sending processed images, not raw / basic data interactions. And, while I carry two USB3.0 2TB back-up SSD drives with me; the read/write time is too low.
BUT — the largest current upgrade that fits my current MacBook Pro is a 1TB and significantly slower read/write speeds than the original 512GB SSD drive – SO — I’m going to wait until later this year to see if Apple actually release a 2016 MacBook Pro with at least 1TB or higher performing SSD’s that fit my macbook pro are available.
My problem with Apple is that they’ve become inconsistent with their upgrade cycles and their line-up is just not logical.
Right now, when you buy a Macbook for 1299 – you get 256 gb. This product is strongly advertised as a consumer product. What doesn’t make sense is that for the same Sweet American Tender(a.k.a USD) you get the base model MBP and you get 128GB. How do they justify this? So for the same price – you get the same display(in PPI), Intel i5 CPU and a better GPU? I understand that the Macbook is a new product, “unseen” and “unheard” , but if you want to sell your pro notebooks – atleast give him the same storage treatment… cmon Apple
How shocking to find Apple – of all companies! – limiting storage in order to upsell customers to more expensive models! How many decades have they been doing this anyway?
I agree Apple’s prices for additional storage is outrageous. However, as long as bestbuy continues to always have their Mac’s on sale I am fine with it. I have purchased my last 3 Mac’s @ bestbuy. When I purchased my 512GB MacBook Pro w/retina, it was $300 off. Basically paying the price of the 256GB.
Just shop around. Bestbuy also offers Apple Care now and if the place you buy your Mac does not you can always bring it into an Apple store after purchase and add it.