I disagree. Macs are plenty repairable. Apple even offers OEM parts and tools for making repairs. Saying “Apple would rather you just bin the entire device when the “e” key dies” doesn’t fit the evidence where Apple offers replacement parts and tools for conducting your own repairs. And repair shops aren’t that terribly expensive either. Trying to hold technology back by making it have to use a bunch of old, clunky components and parts in the name of “repairability“ isn’t a good solution in my opinion.
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
Right, but moving parts are generally also way down. The Air doesn't even have fans any more, and all MacBooks no longer have an optical drive. That dramatically reduces potential mechanical damage. The move to unibody a decade and a half ago also increased rigidity.
But yes, when failure does happen, it tends to get quite pricey.
Replacing the keyboard is painful and very expensive on a MacBook. Check out some iFixit guides if you are interested and have some time.
And I refuse to accept that good repairability and clunky design are antithetical to each other.
It also doesn’t seem to be that common of a failure or repair. And if we look at so called “repairable” computers, they’re generally clunkier than the MacBook.
So you agree that it doesn’t seem to be all that common of an issue anymore. Whether it used to be years ago isn’t very relevant. Besides, many Windows PCs are either just as hard to perform repairs on, or harder in some cases. It’s kind of similar to vehicles. As they improve, they become harder to repair because they use more specialized parts. This has the advantage of a lighter/thinner laptop, and better performance.
It's relevant insofar as similar issues can occur. For example, the display connector was, at one point, a frequent point of failure.
As I've said, the tight integration here is a double-edged sword. It reduces failure rates, but also makes failure more catastrophic.
You just went from "Macs are plenty repairable" top "Windows PCs are just as hard to perform repairs on, or harder".
I wasn’t meaning hard in that sense. I think both are generally plenty repairable. My point is that the repairs on modern Windows computers and Macs are about equal in terms of ease/difficulty to perform. There’s no contradiction here. Sorry if I didn’t state that clearly enough, but I wasn’t intending to imply that either aren’t “plenty repairable”, though I have seen some Windows PCs that require more steps to perform similar repairs to those on a Mac.
Kal. Hope you are well. Just been away for a little surgery, during which time I ascertained RAM had been successfully upgraded on an M1 Mac mini.
With regards the 'they're definitely bespoke', I'm saying its a possibility that cannot be discounted because the evidence doesn't exist to prove or disprove.' It does but you would choose to disbelieve it anyway?
We or well I know that the SSD are certainly not bespoke, as we changed them ourselves on the M1 Mac mini, so its very very unlikely that Apple would source bespoke RAM if it hasn't sourced bespoke SSD's?
I've also ascertained beyond reasonable doubt that the engineer in China did upgrade the RAM on the M1, but where I don't even see that as being that important, as the last thing I would suggest is for people to engage in such a difficult procedure and it is difficult, and way beyond whether RAM is bespoke or not, as without the right expertise, whether ram was bespoke or not, its a perilous task.
However, my argument has and still is that Apple has provably made its intention known to concentrate more on games, and of late introduce AI to its products, all of which will require decent amounts of RAM.
It is also beyond reasonable doubt that Apple has ridden back on its original unwise comments about 8Gb RAM, which inferred an equivalence to 16Gb Ram on PC's, especially as Apple's unified RAM has to serve display as well as its normal RAM functions, which is not the case on many PC's, and where swapping is common to both PC and Mac.
Apple have provably ridden back on that initial claim, because that claim was wrong, and subsequently changed the tune to one of 8Gb is adequate for basic functions, which rather steps back from their initial claims.
Those basic functions do not protect longevity, and with their stated intentions of further software upgrades, introduction of more gaming, introduction of AI, its hard to see how even basic functions will be provided by 8Gb of RAM and I've raised this point with Tim Cook directly, and hopefully it has not fallen on deaf ears, as although people criticise Tim, I've found him helpful and receptive to honest criticism, so we'll see.
The concern must be though for those who bought on the basis of 8Gb inferred to be equivalent of 16Gb then finding in just a short space of time, that their RAM means overall performance on their device is significantly affected even if not rendering the device effectively unusable, which I'm sure in these days of litigation would mean a class action against Apple, and the cost of upgrading the RAM, (where its unlikely there is a cost because of removing the 8Gb production run, and by virtue of increasing the 16Gb production run, with the economy of scale that DOES produce, and I've had a lot of experience in procurement and production over the years.
So you might be happy with your basic function 8Gb which Apple rode back from the original 16Gb inferred equivalence, but would so many who have purchased on the basis of 8Gb being capable, if it then resulted in significant swapping, and a device being unable to utilise the games, AI, more complex software that we know Apple intend, as they've stated the intention.
I hope your recovery from your surgery goes well. 👍🏻. I’m doing well, and I hope you are as well. 👍🏻. I respect your opinion, and I’m not saying you need to change your opinion, but I would like to make a couple of counterpoints from my perspective:
A. Just because I can swap a custom-ordered part made to specific custom tolerances doesn’t prove that the custom part isn’t custom. It just proves that it shares an interface. If I custom ordered a graphics card with specific performance specs, sure, someone could come by and swap it with a generic one that interfaces the same, but that proves absolutely nothing about whether the graphics card I installed was custom or not. Also, the RAM cards seem to have part numbers that don’t correspond with generic parts, which could be evidence that they are custom. We don’t know either way, but the numbers not matching does seem to suggest they’re a custom variant, as that is the usual explanation for non-matching numbers like this.
B. Apple didn’t say 8GB of RAM is the same or equivalent to 16GB. This is a twisting of what an Apple representative said. What he did actually say was that 8GB of RAM in the M-series Mac’s is probably about equivalent in performance to other 16GB systems. This was not in official advertising material, but an off-the-cuff response to a question about the matter. And note that he said it was probably about equivalent. He didn’t say he knew for a certainty it was, or any such thing. Many people reviewing the M1 MacBooks when they first dropped said that their 8GB RAM M1 Macs were performing on par with their 16GB Intel MacBooks, so it’s hardly just this Apple spokesman that noted this, and it’s performance I have personally compared as well, and found to be similar.
C. Apple Intelligence supports 8GB MacBooks. Many of the games being ported over run perfectly fine on 8GB Macs, iPads, and iPhones. You assume that lots of RAM is required for these things, because other platforms require lots of RAM for these things, but so far Apple has done all of these things on lower RAM configuration devices. I even emulate Windows 3D games on my 8GB M1 Mac no problem.
D. If you think that 16GB is more future proof, then you can buy a 16GB configuration. The base spec isn’t designed to cater to everyone. Heck, some wouldn’t find 16GB to be enough, and would want 32GB or more for their particular workflow. But Apple has consistently supported their devices with lots of software updates, there’s no reason to expect any different with the base spec models they’re producing today. And customer satisfaction has been significantly up, if so many base spec customers were miffed, one would think it would be represented by the numbers, but it really doesn’t seem to be.
Last edited:
Kal, you misquote me 'apple didn't say 8gb is the same or equivalent, I used the word inferred and indeed inferred equivalence. "which inferred an equivalence to 16Gb Ram on PC's"
As far as parts go, you demonstrate insufficient knowledge of procurement and part identification, as virtually all companies that buy in parts, have their own code structure for that part, even though its the same part as others use, but with a different code.
This isn't restricted to computer components but multiple companies in all sorts of industries rename/renumber their parts, because it inevitably makes it harder for people to repair without buying that specific part rather than if they had the same ID as everyone else using the same part.
As far 'just because I can swap a custom-ordered', but you haven't ascertained it is a custom part, and in any event if it was and it was replaced by another part, the mere shared interface would not be the same as the part actually working properly, and if the part did properly, then it demonstrates it was not a bespoke part in the first place, but off the shelf just numbered/ID to the requirements of the customer.
Premature to say what Apple Intelligence supports, as its not even here yet?
What you fail to address also is that Apple reigned back on that 8 16Gb RAM situation themselves, because it was nonsense. They reigned it back by then ignoring the comments about 8 16Gb RAM inferred equivalence, leaving that out completely and instead suggesting 8Gb was suitable for basic functions, but even then not mention any potential swapping deterioration to performance.
A. I’m adding a point of clarification. You are saying that Apple marketed or “inferred” in their marketing that the 8GB models were equivalent to the 16GB models and then walked it back. That literally did not happen. Apple never marketed 8GB models as equivalent to 16GB in any of their official marketing material. Several independent reviewers observed that the 8GB M1 Mac was performing on par with their 16GB Intel Macs, including several people I personally know, and myself as well. One Apple employee in context in an interview said that he thought the 8GB M-Series Macs were probably about equivalent in performance to other 16GB systems. Apple as a company didn’t have to walk back anything, because they never marketed the 8GB Macs as equivalent with 16GB systems.
B. I know enough about computer parts to know that often a different part number indicates there is something different about it, even if it’s a minor difference. And again, swapping parts proves nothing beside a shared interface. Again, you could replace my custom-ordered high performance graphics card with a generic one, and the computer would still run fine. That doesn’t mean anything when it comes to determining whether or not my custom graphics card was custom or not, it just means my custom graphics card interfaces the same as a generic one. Nor does it running fine prove anything about whether my original graphics card was custom or not, because my custom card used a standard interfacing scheme, so of course it could be replaced with generic cards. It doesn’t prove anything about whether Apple ordered RAM cards to custom performance tolerances or not. It just doesn’t…
C. You said “As far 'just because I can swap a custom-ordered', but you haven't ascertained it is a custom part…”. I didn’t say it definitely is a custom part, I said it could be a custom part. That’s the point I’ve been making, is that we can’t fairly dismiss the possibility, because we lack the evidence to do so. The point I was making that you quoted was an example of why your reasoning wouldn’t necessarily be true. You’re claiming that if you can swap a part with a generic one and it still functions properly, then that means the original part wasn’t custom ordered. But this simply doesn’t follow. Many parts in a computer can be swapped with other ones. This means nothing as to whether the original part being replaced was ordered to custom design tolerances for things like greater longevity, more efficient performance, higher temperature tolerances, etc. For example, I can replace the battery in my iPhone with a different replacement cell produced by a different company but designed to replace the original. This doesn’t mean that every replacement battery cell is created by the same provider that makes the OEM batteries Apple uses. Some likely do source from the same provider, or at least do a better job replicating the performance and lifecycle of the OEM batteries, but others definitely do not, and while the iPhone will “function properly”, the battery won’t last as long as the OEM ones.
D. We do know that Apple Intelligence supports 8GB M-Series Macs. They said so with the requirements. It also supports iPhones and iPads with 8GB RAM. And Apple Intelligence is now in beta, and I’m currently running it on my 8GB iPad. It’s running perfectly fine with zero performance issues on my 8GB iPad.
E. I don’t know why people on your side of the debate keep insisting that the RAM chips couldn’t possibly be custom, because it’s not like it changes the core argument all that much for either side. Custom ordered parts are typically a bit more expensive than generic ones, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a huge price increase over generic ones. What it really comes down to is some don’t want to pay for RAM upgrades, and others do. But the fact of the matter is, I have yet to find a single computer company that doesn’t sell RAM upgrades at a markup compared to just the RAM hardware itself. Even computers using antiquated RAM cards charge considerably more for RAM upgrades than what the antique RAM cards cost by themselves. All computer companies I’ve ever seen charge a markup for RAM upgrades, and many of Apple’s competitors are charging similar, the same, or higher for their RAM upgrades.
F. The base spec isn’t meant to cater to every potential use case or workflow. It’s supposed to be a base spec, nothing more. Seeing as the 8GB base spec seems to sell very well, and fit many people’s use cases, I see no reason why it must change. Heck, I’m not even what someone would characterize as an “average user”, I’ve used my 8GB M1 Mac for professional graphic design work, 3D modeling/sculpting, video editing, etc. and have had zero issues with performance or the RAM. I even emulate 3D Windows games, and they run fine.
In summary, I see no reason why Apple should change the base spec RAM as long as most base spec customers continue to be satisfied with the current RAM spec and the base spec configurations continue to sell as well as they do. Those who want more than what the base spec offers can always choose a higher configuration.
Last edited:
IMO the OS does a superb job of memory management. The fact that some folks are too cheap to buy appropriate RAM is a flaw 100% on the buyers, exacerbated by Apple's marketing and by misinformed folks here advocating for low RAM for the future just because low RAM worked in the past; which is logically false.
Like you I have paid $1k for a few MB of RAM in the past, so folks cheaping out and choosing to force the OS to jump memory management hoops because they are unwilling to spend a few hundred dollars to optimize the hardware by choosing more RAM makes no sense to me. IMO everyone should read up on Apple's Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) and think about how RAM demands have steadily increased for 40 years when they are configuring a box for the future 3-7 years.
Edit: IMO there are appropriate reasons for low 8 GB RAM boxes, the most obvious being granny with her email. So yes, Apple should offer cheap lower RAM boxes based on Apple's economies of purchasing, etc. But RAM quantity is a buyer choice; probably no one reading here should cheap out and choose a base 8 GB box.
Edit #2: In addition to UMA and unequivocal historical trend, the widespread implementation of AI also seems to suggest that more RAM is appropriate when configuring boxes for the future.
Last edited:
Sorry but this is 2024 and RAM is not so easily changed out. Folks need to plan ahead when they purchase, just like buying a new pickup truck. If I wanted to tow more than 5,000# I would have needed to choose a larger pickup than my Honda Ridgeline. I cannot retrofit the pickup if I decide to tow a 6,000# load in the future.
Last edited:
When you have to resort to analogies from completely different industries just accept that you've lost the plot.
Sorry you do not like the analogy. I guess the logic did not reach you. Let me simplify by repeating the same words:
...this is 2024 and RAM is not so easily changed out. Folks need to plan ahead when they purchase.
Last edited:
That's naughty making it up: "I’m adding a point of clarification. You are saying that Apple marketed or “inferred” in their marketing that the 8GB models were equivalent to the 16GB models and then walked it back." I have never said this. It was Apple that inferred 8Gb equivalence to 16Gb. He never said specifically it equals, merely inferred it. So very very dodgy for you to suggest that's at my door.
It seems before long the comment on 8Gb may be irrelevant, and the sooner the better
B: Glad you now understand that a generic part is often renamed by many computer production companies
C: Is just complete obfuscation and for the record my company have now established RAM can be changed on M1 at least.
D: Until AI is with us, we know nothing about it working on an 8Gb RAM base. Pure conjecture on your part.
E: Its not people on my side of the debate. I write from being with Apple since Steve Jobs, communicated with Steve Jobs and others. Actual business involvement in computer production including procurement and production. Communicate with Tim Cook over the years, so they know who I am.
F: "The base spec isn’t meant to cater to every potential use case or workflow". No one ever suggested it should cater for all, but it should be fit for purpose, and where Apple rolled back their unwise comments on RAM to even agree it was only suitable for basic functions which is not a good look for a Pro machine.
Im summary I suggest you are backflipping trying to justify 8Gb against common sense and where IF Apple are raising the RAM minimum to 16GB, and that's by no mean certain, it will be like the other base, where Apple considered it was the minimum requirement for basic functionality, but its by means certain they are jumping to 16Gb, they may just be testing the 16Gb, but I've got my fingers crossed, and of course if they do, then your argument has burned in flames, but where ironically you and others will be the beneficiaries, providing of course those who bought 8Gb RAM machines with a similar view to yours, aren't then clamouring for a class action if they find their systems are severely limited in functionality as a result of new OS/functionality.
But its still very much in the air as to whether Apple are indeed raising the RAM, but again Mr Cook knows my view, and I asked that perhaps in future ALL Apple employees keep close counsel before issuing ridiculous comments about RAM that simply do not stack up to science or proper scrutiny.
You can have the last word as I've been asked to restrict my posts, as these boards are primarily for end users, rather than organisations/companies with a connection to Apple. We supply to end users, and I'm also pleased to tell you that Apple appreciate views and constructive criticism, and it was really a bad day when an Apple employee mentioned the 8Gb 16Gb comment, which very nearly made Apple a laughing stock which is not helpful to Apple as independent testing demonstrated it was a rather unhelpful and inaccurate remark, which Apple themselves rolled back on, when referring to suitability.
So here's hoping the 8Gb production line is ceased giving a saving in that dropped production line, and economy of scale in any new base RAM configuration, and mitigating most if not all of any RAM upgrade, where I really can't see why anyone would complain at getting 16Gb over 8Gb especially if that is considered what is minimum fit for purpose, as it is so clear that 8Gb was only suitable for basic functions prior, and where Apple should strive and does to be ahead of the game.
Last edited:
I think the analogy works. Both are kinds of capacities.
However, at some point, if all kinds of people need to “plan ahead”, maybe Apple needs to stop offering a bad product.
It doesn't really matter if RAM started at 1GB or 2GB, as long as there are upgrade options that meet peoples needs.
A. I’m saying that you’re claiming Apple inferred 8GB of RAM was equivalent to 16GB of RAM. This is what you’ve said multiple times now. And it is false. One Apple employee said that in their personal opinion an 8GB M-Series Mac is probably equivalent to other 16GB systems. I have compared my 8GB M1 Mac against a prior 16GB Intel Mac (plus 16GB Windows PCs), and I have found the performance from my 8GB M1 Mac to be better. So I agree with his personal assessment. Trying to claim that Apple as a whole inferred something when 1 Apple employee stated their opinion is nonsense. Apple never inferred that 8GB was the same as 16GB in any of their advertising or marketing…
B. Glad you understand that a different part number generally means it’s different in some way… Everything I said contradicted your claims, yet you ignore the points I made and try to claim that somehow I agreed with your assessment when I did not. A different part number generally means it’s at least a bit different.
C. Whether RAM can be changed on M1 or not proves nothing about whether or not the original chips have been made to custom specs to improve longterm performance… Again, if Joe replaces Andy’s custom graphics card with a generic one, that doesn’t mean that Andy’s custom graphics card was really just generic, it means that both use the same interface to connect to the computer. It proves nothing about whether the original RAM chips were ordered to custom tolerances and/or performance specs.
D. It is not “pure conjecture” on my part, because A. Apple says that Apple Intelligence is compatible with 8GB M-Series Macs, and B. Apple Intelligence is currently running on 8GB M-series chips in beta versions of the OSes. I’m personally running Apple Intelligence on my 8GB M1 iPad Pro on the iPadOS 18.1 developer beta, which supports all the same Apple Intelligence features as macOS, and others are testing the macOS 15.1 developer beta which includes Apple Intelligence and runs perfectly fine on 8GB M-series Macs. So no conjecture at all, just facts…
E. Again you completely ignore the points that I made, and try to go off on a bunny trail. You’re claiming that Apple needs to change the base spec, so that puts you on the other side of the debate…
F. It does serve many purposes quite well. I use mine for 3D workflows and professional graphic design, these are not “ordinary” workflows, they’re generally more taxing on a system. Office software doesn’t generally require gobs of RAM to run. Many professionals don’t need super high specs for their workflows. And the high sales for the 8GB base spec Macs suggests that they do serve many purposes. If they didn’t serve any purpose, then one wouldn’t expect it to be that successful of a product… But it is, which implies the more likely possibility is that you and others have an overinflated idea of the specs required for “pro work”…
You’re right. Apple should offer a 2-inch iPhone, a 512 KiB RAM Mac and an iPad without touch. As long as there are upgrade options, it’s fine!
1GB or 2GB! Heck I remembered dreaming about saving up enough to upgrade from 48K to 64K.
I was lucky then, I think my first computers started with 64K and 128K.
The former had a tape deck, the latter had a floppy drive.It would be fun to go back to those days with the base model Macs. I hope Tim is reading this.
A: Not correct and if it was you would have posted it. Although it seem fair to suggest his inferences on RAM was picked up by countless organisations, individuals, industry experts etc., resulting in tests demonstrating he perhaps should have kept well away from issuing the comment he made in the first place. The ONE Apple employee wasn't a gofer was he, he was in fact VICE PRESIDENT OF PRODUCT MARKETING and the comment he made is one even Apple have rolled back from subsequently and in all likelihood wish he'd never made that comment and hopefully he won't make that mistake again. Indeed even the comments on the benefits of unified memory, leave out there are also negatives such as CPU/GPU.
B: "Glad you understand that a different part number generally means its different in some way?" Where have I ever posted that, what I've made clear is that companies like Apple, even like mine buy in components and often have them stamped with our own code number, but they are exactly the same. This applies to computers just as much as it applies with other goods where the original component is renamed or recoded because in the main computer manufacturers and others don't really like the idea of you buying replacement components at a far far cheaper price, so by having them stamped with a code unique to each, but with no relationship to what the actual part including RAM is, just makes it harder, doesn't make it different. In fact if companies buy components in bulk they can stipulate by their generic code, but also stipulate they want them coded to any format they desire which may be in keeping with their own production, but again it doesn't make it different.
C: It does when they are replaced and work perfectly, but I wouldn't recommend anyone try it.
D: It is pure conjecture until we have non beta systems on Macs.
E: I don't ignore the comments you make, they are just wrong.
F: You seem to change your comments about what you do with your computer quite regularly, and where perhaps you should speak to Apple who agree that 8Gb on existing Mac's are suitable for basic functions, after they rolled back from the rather difficult comment made about 8Gb which was widely criticised by independents and tests showing it was a rather silly thing to say, which again I'm sure Apple will prevent from happening again.
As for the overinflated, no I leave to you. After all I'm just someone who's only just got into using Apple, well since 1983 buying my first Lisa, being involved at a high level including including with Apple.
Been involved in corporate including Apple, research and development before starting my own company still running still successful, but I defer to your evolving CV, but where you demonstrated a complete lack of procurement, component and production knowledge, and still do.
But I'm sure if you talk to Tim, he will organise a machine with just 8Gb for you, if you insist...but no doubt if the baseline changes, it would cost you to do that.
Keep well and let's hope Apple keep a tighter rein on comments that bring them into widespread disrepute and really digging a deep hole for Apple. One they have hopefully now climbed out of.
Last edited by a moderator:
A. I said this:
“I’m saying that you’re claiming Apple inferred 8GB of RAM was equivalent to 16GB of RAM. This is what you’ve said multiple times now. And it is false.”
To which you responded with this:
“Not correct and if it was you would have posted it. Although it seem fair to suggest his inferences on RAM was picked up by countless organisations, individuals, industry experts etc., resulting in tests demonstrating he perhaps should have kept well away from issuing the comment he made in the first place.”
But here’s what you said before, along with several similar such comments:
“It is also beyond reasonable doubt that Apple has ridden back on its original unwise comments about 8Gb RAM, which inferred an equivalence to 16Gb Ram on PC's…Apple have provably ridden back on that initial claim, because that claim was wrong, and subsequently changed the tune to one of 8Gb is adequate for basic functions, which rather steps back from their initial claims.”
So you have, in fact, repeatedly claimed that Apple as a business made these claims, when such claims were not a part of any official marketing material, only the comments of a single Apple employee. All of the language you use is about “Apple walking things back”, when Apple has nothing to walk back. Apple as a company never claimed 8GB is the same as 16GB. The employee didn’t make that claim either. Instead, one employee said that 8GB in M-series chips performance is probably analogous to 16GB in other systems. And also, the so-called “tests” that claim to disprove this are dishonest trash created by click-bait shysters. I’ve seen some of these so-called tests, and they lie when they claim they’re comparing a 16GB windows laptop against an 8GB Mac. Because the “16GB” laptop, when you look up the specs, actually is a 24GB RAM laptop because it has an 8GB dedicated graphics card as well, and the processes they’re “testing” are making use of the graphics card’s RAM as well as the other RAM. So in the tests, it’s acting as a 24GB computer, not a 16GB. So it’s a dishonest and a non-reputable comparison. A more accurate or fair comparison would be to compare an actual 16GB system without a dedicated graphics card, and with integrated graphics. When comparing these, the performance is generally on par, and in several cases better. So no, Apple hasn’t walked back anything, because Apple never made any such claims, and the so-called tests produced by clickbait shysters are dishonest, inaccurate, and useless…
B. Yeah, like when you said in the comment I responded to “Glad you now understand that a generic part is often renamed by many computer production companies”. No, I don’t “understand” it, because it isn’t the case usually with components and parts. In many cases with tech parts a different number indicates that it is a different part, even if it’s only different in the design tolerances it’s designed for (like say thermal rating, read/write cycle, etc.). You just repeatedly claiming a different part number doesn’t mean it’s different (which doesn’t even make logical sense on it’s face), and insinuating that it’s all some tech company conspiracy to prevent people from repairing devices as cheaply just doesn’t make it so.
C. No it doesn’t. All that means is that they interface the same. It doesn’t mean they’re both made to the exact same design tolerances. Case in point, I can buy a cheap aftermarket replacement battery for an iPhone and plug it into my iPhone. Does it mean it’s built to all the same tolerances and is the same quality as the OEM? Absolutely not. There are several cheap replacement batteries which don’t last anywhere near like the OEM replacement batteries from Apple. Why is this? Different design tolerances. Some of these cheap replacements even have lower mah capacity than the original. Sure these cheap crappy replacement batteries can be swapped in for the OEMs, but they are not the same cost because they are also not the same quality and aren’t designed for all of the exact same tolerances… Even with SD cards, you have low quality ones that will fail far more often and aren’t designed for as many read/write cycles, and then you have SD cards that are more reliable, and are designed for more read/write cycles, and other better performance tolerances. The same could be true of the flash storage chips Apple uses for RAM. They could be custom ordered for better performance tolerances like more read/write cycles, better thermal performance, etc. Being able to swap out a custom high-performance part with a lower quality part doesn’t mean that the custom part isn’t custom. That doesn’t make logical sense.
D. It’s not conjecture. Apple Intelligence currently runs on 8GB Macs. Right now, today. So no, it isn’t conjecture as you claim. It’s just fact.
E. You write responses to points that have nothing to do with the points that I made, so yes you do…
F. No, I just use my computer for many different things. I use my 8GB M1 Mac for things like professional graphic design, 3D modeling/sculpting, some video editing, emulating Windows PC games, and several other things. I have consistently talked about these use cases in this thread. And in my experience, my 8GB M1 Mac has outperformed 16GB Intel systems I’ve used and tested.