D'oh. TIL. I didn't see that they bundled the improved GPU w/ the storage upgrade too... so yeah, if you want both, you're forced to overpay for one of them. I figured the bundling was due to the RAM being on the CPU package, and wanting to limit the combos they need to stock... also tying it with storage is a bit odd.
Bear in mind that with everything soldered-in it's unlikely they really "build to order" - at least for the popular models - more likely they'll just try to anticipate the demand and build an appropriate number of each configuration in advance. Anything that cuts down the number of permutations will help - hence
most upgrades to the base MBA just lead to one of the higher stock configurations.
MS asked the same question and came up with 16GB instead for their Copilot+ PCs, including the requirement to support 40+ on-device AI models that power some of its new features. Maybe Apple is just doing it better?
Apple will promote what they make and dismiss what they don't make. Remember, styluses were pointless (heh!) until Apple made a stylus, large-screen phones were useless until Apple made large screen phones... Apple will be defending 8GB base models until they move to 12GB or 16GB. 12GB is what you get if you mount two 6GB chips on a M4 but - coincidentally - I'm sure that will be the "perfect" memory size for Apple's AI. As far as MS were concerned, 16GB was already becoming standard on
premium Windows laptops, so it made sense to recommend 16GB. These are all systems with virtual memory, so it's all based on a subjective decision about what level of performance is "acceptable".
“640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
Off topic, but: whoever said it, the issue at the time was that although the 8088 processor could address a whopping 1MB (!!!) of contiguous memory, an arbitrary decision in the design of the original IBM PC limited that to 640K - other 8088 or 8086 systems at the time (before everything turned into a PC clone) offered the full 1MB. So, it was quite a short-term, product lifetime thing, although the meme has come to symbolise a failure to anticipate todays gigabyte-scale memories.
- I’m fine with another generation of MBA with 8GB. It’s enough for most customers that might use a few Safari browsers, a Word document, and maybe Spotify playing in the background.
Well, on past performance the next "entry level" $999 Mac, when the M4 comes out, will likely be the current-model M3 Air - or even the M2 still - starting at 8GB/256GB. So that's kinda moot. What counts is what the actual new models get - particularly (as you say) the MacBook "Pro" models which can't really claim the "basic needs" defense.
Nobody needs 16GB as standard.
...but nobody will be inconvenienced by having 16GB unless Apple continue to pretend that adding 8GB of RAM costs $200.
Apple have explained quite accurately that Apple RAM is effectively double Windows RAM.
To use a famous misquote: "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"
Sorry, folks, but 1GB of data occupies 1GB whether it's on a PC or a Mac. Now, MacOS may be more efficient than Windows at any particular workflow, but "double" is an extraordinary claim without any extraordinary evidence to back it up. Esp. when one of the contenders is now Qualcomm's new ARM-based system-on-a-chip with integrated GPU, NPU and video processor, sharing system RAM...
Anyway, what's the point of RAM efficiency in a world where RAM is cheap (unless it comes with an Apple logo) and not worth skimping on? Maybe Windows needs twice as much RAM - well, guess what,
it gets twice as much RAM for the same price both in terms of base spec and maximum capacity.
www.computerworld.com
), 16GB for the Pro - it's time.developer.apple.com
