There is a difference between cost and value. The additional 8 GB may cost Apple only $20 but the value is provides is a lot more than that (and varies among consumers). And Apple is going to charge at the value where they maximise revenue. They would be leaving money on the table, otherwise.
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
Uh, inflation actually does impact computer pricing. Labor costs have to go up in order to accommodate growing cost-of-living, and that effects pretty much every step of the process in terms of cost, because that’s a price increase in the production cost, an increase in retail cost, etc. Pretending inflation doesn’t effect computer prices at all is absurd…
Not everyone here has to deal with much traffic at all on their daily commutes to work. Cities are more spread out than in Europe as I understand it, so less traffic congestion problems for many parts of the country. I’m glad you enjoy your hikes. 👍🏻And waiting in traffic is NOT a frustration problem? This is what I see when I try to understand much of Western thinking. The 2 seconds bothers you, but stop and go traffic and honking and people cutting you off are just normal parts of life that apparently most think are unavoidable
And I listen to audio books everyday too, while I'm walking my dogs, getting exercise and exploring mountain trails
It's not about opinions. It's been pointed out previously that 8GB and 16GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part. If Steve was still here then we'd have 16GB as standard a long time ago.
OK. Are you pretending that 8 GiB LPDDR5 RAM cost the same in 2023 as 8 GiB DDR3L did in 2012?
Because if not, you could’ve saved yourself from typing that paragraph. Computer components did not increase in price, good lord.
Last edited:
Actually not much of one. I'm usually going the other way than most, so only an accident slows me down. (I go from a city to rural, instead of the other way around)
Yep, it sure does! I'm working, making money, and less time is more money because I can do more in the same amount of time.
My commute though, is pretty much always the same, and it's not working -- it's just something I have to do. (like eating and eliminating. <g>)
Then go buy the other computer that is cheaper to upgrade. Just because other brands are cheaper doesn't mean Apple has to follow suit to appease some MR members.
Ok, this “if Steve was still here, then” thing is just getting a little bit old. He’s not here, and we don’t know what he would do or not do, and now it’s completely irrelevant. I could say “if Steve were still here we’d all by riding hoverboards”, but that’s mere speculation, and is completely irrelevant to anything…
And by extension, all MacBooks should be equipped with 128 GB RAM, since RAM modules of similar sizes are virtually the same price. Where does it end?
Cost to assemble the components and computer have increased in cost, so your point is? You said inflation doesn’t affect computer pricing. But it does. And now you’re deflecting to something else entirely. And we have no exact numbers on how much it costs Apple to produce Unified Memory, it’s all speculation.
If it works for a sizeable market, then absolutely yes. An untapped market for Apple.
That in total, cost has gone down, and bringing up inflation in computer pricing is a bad argument.
We have an upper ceiling. https://eu.mouser.com/c/semiconductors/memory-ics/dram/?type=SDRAM - LPDDR5
Apple will likely get these for like 20% less due to bulk discounts.
Let me explain it in a simpler manner. The argument is based on when components cost the same, Apple should provide the better one for free. Extending this argument:
"It's been pointed out previously that 8GB and 16GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part." Apple changes base model to 16GB.
"It's been pointed out previously that 16GB and 32GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part. Apple changes base model to 32GB.
"It's been pointed out previously that 32GB and 64GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part. Apple changes base model to 64GB.
"It's been pointed out previously that 64GB and 128GB are the same price in volume so there is zero justifiable reason to not go with the higher spec'd part. Apple changes base model to 128GB.
Which is ridiculous. Indeed. This is because the initial argument is false. Apple does not have to essentially give you a free upgrade. The price of a product is not directly dictated by the cost of components. It's based on the value that consumers perceive it to be. Consumers perceive 16 GB to be of higher value than 8 GB, Apple therefore charges more.
Saying inflation doesn’t affect computer pricing is a bad argument. And again, assuming what kind of RAM chips Apple is using, etc., and assuming that the process of producing it unified isn’t different. Anyone claiming numbers for how much the RAM costs Apple is just stabbing in the dark, because that number isn’t known, and there could be variables at play that aren’t being taken into consideration. Besides, some high-end PCs charge comparable prices for RAM upgrades. Am I to believe that Dell charging $100 for RAM that definitely costs them less is somehow more noble than Apple charging $200? This is all subjective, and with Apple’s RAM costs, all we can do is guess and stab in the dark.
Also, it’s a bad argument to pretend that Apple should sell hardware based on exactly what the hardware costs, and not what the value is. If Apple only sold hardware based on exactly what the hardware cost, they wouldn’t make profit. This is why Dell is ok charging at least double for their RAM, because it’s based on the perceived value of that upgrade. And the truth is that Apple is offering something with their Unified Memory that competitors aren’t. It has a tremendous impact on performance. Even if we were to assume that Apple were using the same RAM chips, there’s value added by the way they’re using it. There’s extra value in the fact that it’s faster and snappier then what the other competitors are offering.
Last edited:
Oh you're right. I'm sorry I meant a decade. First generation MBP retina 2013 had a base configuration of 8 GB, so that would be a decade.
We've got lots of dishonest people here asserting to know our own thoughts better than we do. No we would not be surprised at Apple setting the base RAM configuration and price point for a computer they sold five years ago. For them to price it so high and set the RAM so low is not being overlooked as I keep getting told that it is.
So nothing of note in the Apple world for a decade. That's an interesting take on the transition to AS, UMA, etc.
And I would appreciate it if you would be a little less hypocritical about others honesty.
That is correct, which is why others will do exactly that... because Apple's price gouging leaves a bad taste in their mouths.
I don't want others to turn away from Apple, I would rather Apple not so blatantly exploit their customer base.
Specs for the processor in that MBA: https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...r-3m-cache-up-to-2-60-ghz/specifications.html
Okay then I should probably be questioning their intelligence? Obviously I was referring to the base RAM configuration... you know the topic this thread is about!
And I am not being hypocritical, people ARE stating what I and others would be thinking under a hypothetical scenario. My response is the same to you as it is to them... five years ago I'd have been in agreement. Tech has advanced and with shared memory 8 GB as an unreasonable minimum for a computer going for a $1599 starting price. Five years ago then I'd have been in agreement, but tech and general specs have improved if you hadn't noticed.
(I know that's exactly what your comment belayed to everything except base RAM)
So you move to insulting me again, and others for having an opinion you don't agree with.
And while you may believe this thread is about 8GB, I think we have repeatedly stated that we believe it is about value. And it is painfully obvious you do not own an M1 Mac, with 8GB or otherwise.
I am not the one that presumes to understand what goes on in other people's heads. That's insulting. I'll cut the attitude, since it only makes people less likely to listen.
Yes this is entirely about value and many are outraged that Apple are gouging their customers so heavily over upgrades. Apart from a pitiful 8 GB RAM just about everything about the M series machines (at base level) is fantastic. This could have allowed them to lead the market by offering the single greatest value for performance computers in the world. Instead they bottleneck them with terrible base storage and RAM... forcing premiums on machines that cannot later be upgraded.
Does that not sound devious?
Apple is not exploiting. Apple is trying to sell Macs to as wide a financial audience as they can. Business 101. Accusing Apple of exploitation because the base model isn't 16GB is nothing but empty hyperbole.