It isn’t about Apple’s component cost, it’s about the perceived added value of the product on offer. Most products are not priced purely based on material costs. Prices are balanced for maximum profitability, what customers are willing to pay for said product, etc. Even many low-end budget laptops that use Antique RAM cards charge $100 or more for RAM upgrades. Because it isn’t about the component cost, but the added value for customers…
And they could also decide to price it as a loss-leader and make zero or very little profit from it at all… Just because a business could do something (which is technically an assumption since we don’t really know what profits Apple makes on these Macs to begin with, though I’m guessing there’s reasonable margin) doesn’t mean they should do it. Several competitors are charging similar or even higher prices for their upgrades…
Again, that’s merely your opinion. And many people are still using 8GB M1 Macs to this day without issue, so I don’t think it’s “stretching” a spec just because some need more. Is Apple “stretching” 16GB because some need 32GB? Or what about those who need 128GB? The existence of some who want or need more RAM doesn’t mean the base spec is being “stretched”.
If you’re starting premise is “everyone needs 16GB” (in your case, I think you believe everyone needs at least 12GB) (while ignoring many who are still using 8GB Macs perfectly fine, and the high sales of those models), then of course when the base spec is changed to 16GB you’ll find it easier to recommend. What I don’t get though, is why the base spec being lower automatically makes the entire lineup somehow not worth recommending. I don’t know, maybe people could always just buy the RAM spec they wanted or thought they would need… And that would still be worth recommending… Like, if someone needs a 32GB or 64GB computer, the entire MacBook lineup is suddenly somehow not worth recommending anymore because the base spec isn’t 32GB or 64GB?
