This is actually a ridiculous argument. If the 16GB option is overpriced, then that means the 8GB is as well. The 16GB went to the price of the 8GB.
That’s because you don’t understand my point. I’m not the one saying it is overpriced. What I’m saying is that if you want a 16GB computer, you should consider whether the 16GB computer is worth the price, not that you wish you could have a 16GB computer for the price of the 8GB.
So if Apple had decided to continue offering an 8GB configuration, but at $200 cheaper and sold the 16GB for the original price point of the 8GB, would you still oppose Apple providing us with that base spec option? There are people in this thread who literally argued that the 8GB configuration shouldn’t exist no matter how discounted it was, which I think is pretty ridiculous. For those who don’t need gobs of excess RAM to surf the web, check email, and play Stardew Valley, a $200 price discount on an already pretty cheap base-spec version could be a pretty nice deal. But some people have this kind of RAM superiority complex that they think that no computer should exist that offers less than 16GB RAM, which just makes no sense when plenty of people find 8GB to be more than enough for their needs and simply don’t need 16GB. To me, it’s like insisting that the base spec iPhone must start at 1TB storage. Some people may want that much storage, but lots of people don’t even use a fraction of that, so might as well be able to save the money with a 128GB configuration.
Wow, not even sure why I am even bothering with you because it's very clear you don't understand. First go and look, I responded to multiple times, this was just the second quote I pulled out because it was so ridiculous.
I appreciate your take on this. Perhaps reframing this would help them -
So the pricing wasn't my originally point. That was just brought up to me, so I replied. My point has been that in 2025 8GB starting point for RAM is not enough. So the fact that Apple has switched the base to 16GB for the price of the 8GB version proves they agree. You can give all the examples for what your Mac can do with 8GB of RAM, but the future of tech is moving fast. You said before you don't buy a computer based on future updates, which is true to extent, but also not. Computers aren't like phones, you don't upgrade them every year or 2. These are devices you keep for a length of them, and having current MacOS updates is important. So while you don't think people care about AI Apple is betting on that, and they are updating their products for that in mind. So in 2025 and really in the last couple of years, 8GB of RAM isn't enough.
The only problem with the “at which spec are both users okay” argument is that one could just continue that train of thought until Apple only provides one spec, and it’s the 256GB of RAM spec. Some people aren’t good with 16GB and need 32GB, so you could just keep going up the ladder of upgrades until you’re at the very top with a spec that’s enough for everyone. But the pricing would not be…
First of all, I see no indications that Apple will drop software support for 8GB M1-M3 Macs any faster than 16GB configurations of the same chip. Apple will likely drop support for all M1, M2, and M3 Macs at the same time. And that’s likely still several years down the road. Currently, every Apple Intelligence feature runs perfectly fine on 8GB Macs, the only AI-related feature that currently doesn’t is an X-Code feature, something most average users will likely never care about or use… I think all or most Apple Intelligence features will continue to run on 8GB Macs for the foreseeable future, as the iPhones which are the biggest driving force behind the Apple Intelligence push use 8GB of RAM. I don’t think they’ll be upgrading the iPhones to 16GB of RAM and leaving these new Apple Intelligence iPhones in the dust, so chances are pretty good that most Apple Intelligence features will run fine on 8GB RAM. I think the main reason Apple decided to move to 16GB wasn’t due to AI, but due to all the complaining tech media writing trashy hit-pieces against Apple over it, and perhaps as a way to differentiate the Mac lineup from the iPad lineup and add some more value. The iPad got the M4 before the Mac, so perhaps they wanted to throw a bone to the Mac users who had to wait for it. But anyway, all of the current Apple Intelligence features run fine on 8GB Apple Silicon Macs, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. And they will certainly get plenty of software support. Also, as I said before, some just don’t really care about AI. I like Apple Intelligence, but would I upgrade my Mac just for that? Probably not. I know how I use my Mac, what workflow it needs to support, and am confident that it will do so until the end of it’s software support life. And I think so are many other base-spec customers…
You are reaching so hard here. Apple has never, and will never update their product lines because of tech news outlets are giving them down the road for not having something they deem necessary. That is absolutely ridiculous.
That’s not “reaching”, it just seems obvious that AI isn’t the only reason for bumping the RAM, since all of the AI stuff runs fine on the 8GB Mac models.
Agree, you need to read what I wrote. You completely skip stuff. I said you were reaching with the idea that Apple updated the RAM because of tech news outlets. Thats just ridiculous.
Mac Mini is an entrance model into the world of Apple. Many people are clueless as to what to get. Those even coming from PC world don't realize the difference between their old PC and the M series Minis. We know that some Mac people also lament or have remorse over their purchases and some return them and go for a different config or model.
I didn’t “completely skip stuff”, I stated a couple potential reasons Apple decided to move to a 16GB spec in my opinion. Enough negative press could be harmful, so I think it’s possible they may have made that switch to stop all of the negative press. They’ve reacted to negative press many other times, like when they just pulled the Notification Summaries feature in iOS 18.3 after the BBC whined and threw a fit over it. There’s also the other potential part of their decision that they launched the iPad with the M4 before the Macs had them, so maybe they wanted to make the wait worth it for Mac users by throwing them a bone, and perhaps they wanted to kind of differentiate the Mac lineup a bit more from the iPad lineup since they’ve become so close in recent years. Maybe some of the lower spec customer base of the MacBooks moved over to the iPad. Who knows. You were the one who, in fact, “completely skipped stuff” by apparently focusing on one of several potential influencing factors I threw out there as a possibility.
Yes, the Mac Mini is an entry model, but no, I don’t think customers are dolts who can’t possibly figure out what they want or need. I think customers are much smarter than you seem to be giving them credit for. If they have any doubts, they could always ask more knowledgeable people. Most people who aren’t very tech literate usually have family members who are and will ask recommendations when needed. And most people who absolutely need a higher spec know who they are, and know what spec they need…
Perhaps you read into my comment. I don't think that customers are dolts nor does this have to do with measure of intelligence. People may not know any better and in turn, make choices that don't best serve their needs. This is a pretty common scenario in various purchase venues.
Sure, people would likely buy either at the same price point, but my point is that the 8GB models had high sales and high customer satisfaction, which means that seemingly the majority of 8GB customers didn’t need higher specs, and we’re happy with their purchase. None of the evidence seems to indicate there was some widespread issue of base spec customers buying 8GB models and being unhappy. As I said before, those who need higher specs know who they are…
Again, highest amount of returns were 8 gig models and that was Apple selling these returns. What is your take on the reason Apple is raising the minimum spec of RAM on their computers?
A reason to incentivise users to upgrade, perhaps? The problem isn't that later apple silicon Macs weren't good enough, but that the original M1 Macs were just too good, and the reality is that they already more than met the needs of the majority of their user base who don't really have very intensive computing workflows to begin with.
And highest sales were 8GB models. They probably had several reasons. I agree with @Abazigal that it was likely partly a strategy to convince existing M1 and M2 base spec customers to upgrade. It also could have been to avoid all of the negative press that the last M3 MacBook lineup got from the whiners complaining in the tech media trying to create an artificial clickbait scandal. There’s several potential reasons. But Apple Intelligence is fully supported on 8GB Macs, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Apple Intelligence will need to continue to support the latest iPhones moving forward, and the latest iPhones are equipped with 8GB RAM. Same with the latest iPads.
Interesting take on this. I don't equate RAM with CPU/GPU power. Apps need it no matter capability of the M1 chip. Whether it is a slower system or faster, some apps benefit specifically with more RAM.
