Imagine how big Apple would/could be if they embraced open hardware. They do have a moat here. macOS is so bloated, I hate it, but the hardware is just so much better than anything else.
The Server market is enormous with a much higher average selling price. It would make perfect sense for Apple to make servers if it meant more revenue and profit than they could make not doing it. There are rumors that Apple is planning a M8 based server in 2029.
> There are rumors that Apple is planning a M8 based server in 2029.
The issue is that the current Apple way of designing hardware doesn't really work for servers. An individual 1U server can easily cost $50,000 or more. Soldering everything together so that if a single memory chip goes bad you have to replace the entire machine instead of that one stick is going to make customers unhappy. Likewise, they expect to be able to add storage or network ports, and expect the software to have enough openness that the new systems will work with their existing enterprise SAN or what have you.
Obviously Apple could make open server hardware, but then people might start wondering why they can't make open laptop hardware.
They could use sockets for the memory. Easily justifiable because there is much more available space in a server than their other products. Just look at how bare the Apple Silicon Mac Pro mainboard looks.
The problem was never space. They solder the RAM even in the laptops that have 8GB and the same memory bandwidth as ordinary PC laptops with modular RAM, and DIMMs take up less space on the board because the memory chips can then be attached double-sided to a DIMM that only needs as much space on the board as it takes for an edge connector.
The primary advantage of soldering compared to DIMMs is that the traces can be slightly shorter without routing them through an edge connector, but if you need that then you can use CAMM.
They solder the memory because then you can't upgrade it. Strong evidence for this is that they do the same thing with the SSD, for which there is no even plausible other justification.
The main reason is definitely just overcharging people for upgrades but size also includes thickness. SOCAMM would add at least the thickness of an extra PCB. I don't really agree with Apple's obsession to make their devices as thin as possible (they're thin enough!) but it would be a valid concern for them.
> Strong evidence for this is that they do the same thing with the SSD
Worse, they have a proprietary module that they use in the Mac Mini. Couldn't have just used M.2.
sscaryterry · · focus · HN ↗
MBCook · · focus · HN ↗
They only want to sell the whole package. You might as well ask the Catholic Church to start a rap music 8-track only record club. Same probability.
The hardware is a means to an end, and nothing else to them.
UltraSane · · focus · HN ↗
internet2000 · · focus · HN ↗
UltraSane · · focus · HN ↗
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
The issue is that the current Apple way of designing hardware doesn't really work for servers. An individual 1U server can easily cost $50,000 or more. Soldering everything together so that if a single memory chip goes bad you have to replace the entire machine instead of that one stick is going to make customers unhappy. Likewise, they expect to be able to add storage or network ports, and expect the software to have enough openness that the new systems will work with their existing enterprise SAN or what have you.
Obviously Apple could make open server hardware, but then people might start wondering why they can't make open laptop hardware.
Rohansi · · focus · HN ↗
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
The primary advantage of soldering compared to DIMMs is that the traces can be slightly shorter without routing them through an edge connector, but if you need that then you can use CAMM.
They solder the memory because then you can't upgrade it. Strong evidence for this is that they do the same thing with the SSD, for which there is no even plausible other justification.
Rohansi · · focus · HN ↗
> Strong evidence for this is that they do the same thing with the SSD
Worse, they have a proprietary module that they use in the Mac Mini. Couldn't have just used M.2.