Well, then, I guess I can only say we agree to disagree. I don't think there is a large enough market for people who are THAT lazy.
Absolutely, yes. But for the sake of the argument, just say the media would be replaceable (no hotplugging - more like RAM is replaceable).
What does an integrated RAID offer over that?
People can even sell enclosure + 2 drives bundles.
Harddrive capacities double about every 1.5 year. Just because you can get a 2TB drive now doesn't mean your 1TB drive (or 500GB drive from 3 years ago) is worthless.
I don't really see the value in this, though. If a media fails, you can still access your data and copy it to an entirely new drive. Given at least one year of guarantee (not sure how realistic it is to make a successfull warranty claim after 2 years) it's probably more efficient to get a completely new and probably a lot faster and larger drive. Especially since the advancements in ssd technology are rather fastpaced at the moment.
Nyda is saying that people are too lazy to even buy 2 identical drives and stick them into a zero-configuration enclosure. I respectfully disagree.
I'm not sure I'm following the debate.
RAID 1 implements just the needed functionality. If a drive fails, the other takes control and the array is disabled with nothing more than a notice to the user letting them know of the failure. Since RAID 1 can be implemented with zero-configuration, how come this is problematic to non savvy users?