I actually gave up completely. 32” QHD display and an i7 based desktop with Ubuntu. This runs my business, handles my personal, and I have a couple VMs running on it. My 27” iMac is my secondary machine now.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unless you want some of the features of the MBP but don't want or need 16GB.
To you. Other opinions and wallets may differ.
Companies don't get embarrassed, they do things so people buy their products. Apple no doubt decided those features would help drive buying decisions.
One possibility is that they just de-emphasize the RAM figure entirely and convey perf based on real-world benchmarks and comparison. We used to use CPU clock speed as the main benchmark stat. These days you rarely see clock speed mentioned. Even # of cores were a stat to tout in the early Ryzen days but the importance of that stat is also fading with specialized cores being more important than overall core count.
Now there is not really a single figure on the spec sheet that tells the whole story, and that has people in an uproar as they try to use their outdated understanding to compare their old hardware to new.
I wouldn't be surprised if the base, pro, and max SOCs come with fixed RAM allocations with less upgrade options eventually. On the higher configurations, it gets tough to imagine a workflow benefitting enough from 64 vs 96 vs 128. I could easily see these configurations being something like 8 or 16, 32 or 64, and 128.
Yes, and Apple's Mac sales need to plummet for these "new" misleading, low-value products.
Stop buying and discourage others from upgrading at every chance.
Nobody needs this endless, bait & switch product segmentation trickery, with newer products that are worse than or barely better than newer ones but still get marketed as the "sequel" next generation.
This is yet more of "old wine in new bottles" b.s. we got with the USB-C Apple Pencil, just in another price range.
Stop buying, stop buying, stop buying. Please, for your own good.
And if the base model had 16GB of RAM, and started at $1,799 you'd literally never know the difference.
This issue, if we dare call it that, reflects more on our society than anything else.
It's a culture of whiners.
Nothing is keeping you from buying 16GB RAM if that is what you want.
It's a culture of whiners.
Nothing is keeping you from buying 16GB RAM if that is what you want.
Apple has historically not pursued a strategy to be the low-cost leader in the technology market. Instead, Apple has consistently employed a premium pricing strategy:
1. The early Macintosh computers had higher production costs than their MS-DOS PC counterparts, partially due to the need to amortize system software development and proprietary graphics hardware technology across fewer units. Apple chose to maintain a higher price point to fund further development and marketing, as well as to preserve their traditional gross margin of 40% [Brand Pricing Strategy: The Early Apple Way - Branding Strategy Insider](https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/brand-pricing-strategy-the-early-apple-way/).
2. After leaving Apple in 1985, Steve Jobs founded NeXT Computer, targeting the higher education market with an introductory price of $9999, which was considered high Brand Pricing Strategy: The Early Apple Way - Branding Strategy Insider](https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/brand-pricing-strategy-the-early-apple-way/).
3. Even decades later, Apple continued to use a premium price strategy, as evidenced by its smaller market share in mobile compared to Android and Samsung, yet still capturing 80% of the profits in consumer mobility [Brand Pricing Strategy: The Early Apple Way - Branding Strategy Insider](https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/brand-pricing-strategy-the-early-apple-way/)
Basically, this is much ado about nothing.
1. The early Macintosh computers had higher production costs than their MS-DOS PC counterparts, partially due to the need to amortize system software development and proprietary graphics hardware technology across fewer units. Apple chose to maintain a higher price point to fund further development and marketing, as well as to preserve their traditional gross margin of 40% [Brand Pricing Strategy: The Early Apple Way - Branding Strategy Insider](https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/brand-pricing-strategy-the-early-apple-way/).
2. After leaving Apple in 1985, Steve Jobs founded NeXT Computer, targeting the higher education market with an introductory price of $9999, which was considered high Brand Pricing Strategy: The Early Apple Way - Branding Strategy Insider](https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/brand-pricing-strategy-the-early-apple-way/).
3. Even decades later, Apple continued to use a premium price strategy, as evidenced by its smaller market share in mobile compared to Android and Samsung, yet still capturing 80% of the profits in consumer mobility [Brand Pricing Strategy: The Early Apple Way - Branding Strategy Insider](https://brandingstrategyinsider.com/brand-pricing-strategy-the-early-apple-way/)
Basically, this is much ado about nothing.
Last edited:
The base model being a rip off makes everything above it also a rip off, so no
If they're all rip offs then nobody will be buying them right? I should sell my stock now.
Apple has always been for profit. I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently. Or Think Differently for that matter 😃
That's cute that you think baseline iMac users buy what's "good"
My only comment would be at $1799 you might as well just get one with the M3Pro, faster CPU, faster GPU, more ram, faster ram, faster ssd, more ports and supports 2 external displays. If Apple can maximize profit with this new model, great, IMO I would have not even bothered with an m3 MBP
Time will tell, I think is sucks but at the end of the day that does not matter, lets see how it sells
A lot of people say "I buy whatever Apple produces because they value the user experience and so do I"
Yeah, sorry, I'm going to have to go with "8GB of RAM transubstantiates into 16GB when it's soldered on top of a M3" magical thinking as the "religious" argument vs. the side consistently citing benchmarks, giving reasoned technical arguments, making price/spec comparisons with competing products and upgrade costs, repeatedly pointing out that the "extra" materials in Mac upgrades are no different from the ones in far cheaper PC upgrades etc.
I have Apple stuff. I sometimes post defenses of Apple when I think they're being wrongly criticised. I happen to think that the low RAM/SSD specs, sky-high upgrade charges etc. are one of the main valid criticisms of Apple. If I didn't have an interest in buying Apple stuff I wouldn't wast my time posting here.
Fortunately, my main machine is a Studio and Apple didn't have the brass neck to start that at less than 32GB RAM (or maybe they just couldn't get Max-compatible LPDDR chips that small) - if they had I probably would have bailed out and got a PC. I've certainly held off buying a second system or laptop, and initially delayed going to Apple Silicon at all, because of the lousy RAM/storage specs.
I don't care if 8GB is "good enough" for some people - the advice forums here are full of people agonising over whether to pay for more RAM and storage. Its 2023 and 16GB and/or a 1TB SSD are not expensive luxuries that people should be nickel-and-diming over.
I wouldn’t pay it, but some people do just like Disneyland. Disneyland was great at $60 a day I was able to go on all the rides I wanted to, and even double up. Now with prices over $100 a day you’ll be lucky to get on the same rides today as I was able to back then due to overcrowding so the value isn’t there for me today.Since you're a Lakers fan..."The average ticket price per game this season is around $487.07" Is that a rip-off?
Well Apple and Disney are in bed together soooo.... you could make the argument it's relevant.
It’s not just the RAM, but also the SSD. 16/512 or better 1 TB is the ideal starting point, more is always better.
But where is the complaint? From the MBA to the Max there are various sizes and power levels, ports and looks to choose from. Could RAM and especially SSD be less expensive? Yes, absolutely, I would be happier if 8TB would come at the price of 4TB and be closer to the market value. Even with added cost for building the CTO machines, the prices are aggressively high. But apart from that, and keeping in mind where the brand positions itself, I still see nothing really comparing to these machines, whether you get an entry level MBA or a fully stacked MBP.
But where is the complaint? From the MBA to the Max there are various sizes and power levels, ports and looks to choose from. Could RAM and especially SSD be less expensive? Yes, absolutely, I would be happier if 8TB would come at the price of 4TB and be closer to the market value. Even with added cost for building the CTO machines, the prices are aggressively high. But apart from that, and keeping in mind where the brand positions itself, I still see nothing really comparing to these machines, whether you get an entry level MBA or a fully stacked MBP.
Actually, Apple did bring HDMI ports and SD card slots to MBPs because it's in their business interest.Apple did not bring back HDMI ports and SD card slots in their "Pro" laptops because it's in their business interest. They did it because it was an embarrassment. The same could probably be said about dropping that abomination called "touchbar", but that'll probably bring out the actual pitchfork bearers, so I won't go further into that.
As to the touchbar, some (me) liked it and many did not. That is how the world works.
Precisely, and may I also add that if everyone is so upset about 8GB of RAM, then just pay a bit more for 16GB of RAM, problem solved. 🤷🏼♂️
Do you really think most Mac users need 20 tabs open in Lightroom classic or are using Final Cut Pro? Probably not. Most users can get by with 8GB without having to pay upfront for an extra 8GB. I do not really get what the issue is. Apple would probably raise the price for a base 16GB anyway, so you would be paying the same.