Apple is not going to stop starting at 8GB anytime soon. And that's good.

[ric22]

The price for the jump from 18-36GB RAM also needs to halve... asking $400 for it in America and the equivalent of nearly $600 for it in some countries is insane.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

Is 8GB of Apple RAM equal to 16GB? I doubt that. But it is definitely more efficient, and with dynamic caching, even more efficient than we've seen it become.

Is it equal to 12GB of PC RAM? 10GB?

Apple isn't going to stop starting at 8GB anytime soon. They know that bumping up the low end will increase costs across the board...and especially since going to Apple Silicon, 8GB is a good amount if you're a simple user who doesn't run many apps at the same time, or you don't have 40 tabs open.

It's actually good they aren't just going to 16GB, because it incentizes them to make the system as efficient as possible, which pays dividends by making all Macs better machines. And if you are reading this, you're a power user—you come to Macrumors, come on—so you already know you want at least 16GB, so pay the tax.

It's not smoke and mirrors—Apple Silicon does use RAM better, and 8GB is increasingly enough depending on what you do with it. Bleating over and over that Apple "needs" to give away double that amount is silly...they will only do that if they look at what their average user is doing with the machines, and seeing that those folks are starting to have real memory pressure at such a level that the floor needs to be raised.

And when they do—count on it being 12 GB, not 16.

In the meantime...just buy your damn RAM up to 16GB if you are obsessing over it!

No, no. Nobody should "just buy" because Apple does in fact need to give at least a bit better specs for all configurations.

They're overall some of the best computers you can buy, sure. But Mac RAM and storage options are way too overpriced with no options to upgrade post-purchase.

However, no social media hysteria is going to change the product strategy of a giant, billion dollar corporation.

Only disappointing Mac sales can change Mac pricing.

My advice is to buy less Macs, less frequently, and Apple will soon be forced to genuinely impress us again.

 

[toobravetosave]

Is 8GB of Apple RAM equal to 16GB? I doubt that. But it is definitely more efficient, and with dynamic caching, even more efficient than we've seen it become.

Is it equal to 12GB of PC RAM? 10GB?

Apple isn't going to stop starting at 8GB anytime soon. They know that bumping up the low end will increase costs across the board...and especially since going to Apple Silicon, 8GB is a good amount if you're a simple user who doesn't run many apps at the same time, or you don't have 40 tabs open.

It's actually good they aren't just going to 16GB, because it incentizes them to make the system as efficient as possible, which pays dividends by making all Macs better machines. And if you are reading this, you're a power user—you come to Macrumors, come on—so you already know you want at least 16GB, so pay the tax.

It's not smoke and mirrors—Apple Silicon does use RAM better, and 8GB is increasingly enough depending on what you do with it. Bleating over and over that Apple "needs" to give away double that amount is silly...they will only do that if they look at what their average user is doing with the machines, and seeing that those folks are starting to have real memory pressure at such a level that the floor needs to be raised.

And when they do—count on it being 12 GB, not 16.

In the meantime...just buy your damn RAM up to 16GB if you are obsessing over it!

What an absolute joke

 

[toobravetosave]

You can give that Dell 128 gigs of ram and it would still be a slow plastic piece of crap that runs the ugliest OS Microsoft has put out in 15 years. I thought we stopped comparing this garbage to Macs?

Right after saying like 60% of workers are just using the cloud you talk about dells being slow lmao

 

[gpat]

What we have to remember also is that if the base RAM on the Air’s or entry MBP bumped up to 16GB, they would likely get a price hike, and then following that the M Pro/Max machines would also have to bump in RAM essentially meaning price jumps across the board. There is no way they would put 16GB entry in the Air and then have 18GB entry in the pros… if anything I think the Airs/entry pros would bump to 12GB RAM, but we will be waiting quite a while for that, probably early 2025 at earliest when M4 launches, even then though I wouldn’t like to hold my breath for it.

12GB for M4 and 24GB for M4 Pro would be fair.
M3 Max is already at 36GB so it's not that wild of a request.
We're talking about an upgrade that would cost literal pocket change to Apple. DDR5 is like $4 per GB.

 

[gpat]

Right after saying like 60% of workers are just using the cloud you talk about dells being slow lmao

The problem with Windows laptops is that even top-end models can't offer a trackpad experience as good as 2009 Macbooks, nevermind the Force Touch they're using today.
I periodically give chances to premium Ultrabooks, from the Surface line to XPS or ASUS or Lenovo and that's the state of things.
So they're unusable to me, at any price point, for the purposes of a notebook anyway.
If we were talking about desktops, of course it would be the opposite. Apple desktops offer absolutely zero appeal over PCs to me nowadays.
For the price of a Mac Mini i could build a comparable ITX mini-PC with infinite upgrade possibilities, and the advantages of Apple Silicon wouldn't matter as much.

 

[theluggage]

I would WAY rather have an inexpensive base model available than be forced to buy the 16GB machine that I may not need.

...but only because Apple wants an eye-watering $200 for an extra 8GB of LPDDR5 RAM, an upgrade that the likes of Dell, Lenovo and HP charge consumers under $100 (including a profit margin) for, and at the sort of quantities Apple buys, the extra material cost would be offset by the cost savings of making and distributing one less variant of the logic board.

There's a difference between saying "hey, not everybody needs feature X so let's leave it out and pass on the savings" and "hey, we could include feature X for little or no extra cost, but if we leave it out we can charge $200 to add it back in".

 

[Pankeborg]

12GB for M4 and 24GB for M4 Pro would be fair.
M3 Max is already at 36GB so it's not that wild of a request.
We're talking about an upgrade that would cost literal pocket change to Apple. DDR5 is like $4 per GB.

What it would "cost Apple" is not relevant. They will obviously always try to extract the highest amount possible, taking into account that fewer will buy it if it costs more, that their reputation will suffer if the base model is underpowered, etc etc. Apple is one of the most sophisticated companies in the world when it comes to this, so trust me, their pricing is pretty close to optimal. A lot closer than what you or I could come up with on the lunch break. They likely literally people whose only job it is to set the pricing structure.

We all want more ram for free, but that's not really an argument for anything. Apple charges as much as they can get away with. Upgrading ram is extremely expensive compared to component costs, but you can bet that the price is pretty close to perfect.

 

[Pankeborg]

...but only because Apple wants an eye-watering $200 for an extra 8GB of LPDDR5 RAM, an upgrade that the likes of Dell, Lenovo and HP charge consumers under $100 (including a profit margin) for, and at the sort of quantities Apple buys, the extra material cost would be offset by the cost savings of making and distributing one less variant of the logic board.

There's a difference between saying "hey, not everybody needs feature X so let's leave it out and pass on the savings" and "hey, we could include feature X for little or no extra cost, but if we leave it out we can charge $200 to add it back in".

Are you upset that Apple wants to make money? Obviously they could give us lots of things for free, but they are not a charitable foundation. They will always maximise their returns, and I promise you that they make more money this way, by charging exorbitant prices for ram upgrades. Luckily for you, there are cheaper computers out there.

 

[mrmister]

I don’t think it’s a “good” thing, but it’s ok. I have a M2 Air with 8 GB, and it’s not just “fine,” I’ve never had it slow down, ever. Of course that’s usage dependent, but I bet my uses are a lot of people’s uses.

Funny how the people who actually use the 8GB machines for standard tasks aren't screaming like the rest of you. 🤔

 

[mrmister]

That extra 8GB of RAM costs AAPL about $4.62. This $30 crap is senseless. Look at economies of scale and business to business transaction not a consumer purchase at $30.

They charge a lot of the upgrade, as you all well know on this forum. So what it costs them if they were to just give away that upgrade (which to be clear, is what most people here want) is a tremendous amount of pure profit for them.

This is why they aren't going to do it.

They will need to see softness in their sales that they feel can be fixed by bumping this spec, OR evidence that extremely regular users who web surf, chat, and use Office apps need more than 8GB. And that evidence doesn't exist yet.

 

[mrmister]

Absolutely, 8gb is plenty for most users. If people could also stop complaining about the minimum disk space offered on iPhones, that would be great. Apple commenters need to realise that most people are not doing video editing with 8k streams, or storing all the movies they ever downloaded. It's not a plot or a scam, it's just that Apple knows how normal people use their devices, and you don't. You think everyone is a power user. The typical mac owner uses safari, word and possibly excel, and that is great.

This is probably the one issue where Apple haters and Apple fanboys can agree. The fanboys are power users and nerds that think everyone else also needs a super computer, the haters just want to find things to hate, so they seize on things like "only" providing 8gb of ram as the baseline.

Absolutely correct.

Also "Pro" users have this dumb thing ever since "Pro" got invented for Apple's use in the mid aughts—a weird belief that "Pro" means something.

"Pro" can mean, a machine for professionals...but it also means, the machine with a better screen, more ports, a bit bigger, and the people are still using it for websurfing and light office apps.

That's why there's room for people who are fine at 8GB.

 

[salamanderjuice]

What we have to remember also is that if the base RAM on the Air’s or entry MBP bumped up to 16GB, they would likely get a price hike, and then following that the M Pro/Max machines would also have to bump in RAM essentially meaning price jumps across the board. There is no way they would put 16GB entry in the Air and then have 18GB entry in the pros… if anything I think the Airs/entry pros would bump to 12GB RAM, but we will be waiting quite a while for that, probably early 2025 at earliest when M4 launches, even then though I wouldn’t like to hold my breath for it.

Why do people keep saying this? The price of DRAM and SSDs has dropped considerably even since January. Just because they charge $200 for an upgrade doesn't mean it costs them $200. Now they are just making more money since prices are lower for them.

 

[mrmister]

What we have to remember also is that if the base RAM on the Air’s or entry MBP bumped up to 16GB, they would likely get a price hike, and then following that the M Pro/Max machines would also have to bump in RAM essentially meaning price jumps across the board. There is no way they would put 16GB entry in the Air and then have 18GB entry in the pros… if anything I think the Airs/entry pros would bump to 12GB RAM, but we will be waiting quite a while for that, probably early 2025 at earliest when M4 launches, even then though I wouldn’t like to hold my breath for it.

👏

Yes. If they all bumped to 16GB, there's no universe where Apple wouldn't pass that on to folks, and it would be both meaningless AND more expensive for lots of people.

I agree that eventually the floor will rise, probably to 12GB...but like James, I would not hold your breath for it anytime soon.

 

[mrmister]

They bumped the iPhone Pro's RAM without a price hike this year.

They do not have a profit system that tiers out how much RAM everyone gets on an iPhone. If they did, which would suck, they would be doing this as well.

 

[mrmister]

Why do people keep saying this? The price of DRAM and SSDs has dropped considerably even since January.

One last time—Apple uses it as a profit center for the machines. So no one cares what the actual price of DRAM is, up to a magical point when Apple perceives they start looking completely ridiculous. What matters to them is the lost money if the upgrade is bundled in, so now no one pays them the extra $200.

In essence "pro" users subsidize the profit margin to make the base machines marginally cheaper.

 

[mrmister]

There's a difference between saying "hey, not everybody needs feature X so let's leave it out and pass on the savings" and "hey, we could include feature X for little or no extra cost, but if we leave it out we can charge $200 to add it back in".

You're right—if it was an actual feature, like Apple made you pay extra to have a good trackpad, and otherwise you get a very basic trackpad.

This isn't that. This is RAM, which we power users know make the experience better...but only if you use the machine to do certain tasks, and only if you care enough about the experience.

Which is why it's a tax on power users. Which is why everyone here hates it.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

That's a MacBook or MacBook AIR user, not a Pro. Don't confuse these. Apple shouldn't sell a Pro machine that crashes when using their own Pro application (Final Cut Pro) because it runs out of memory.

Couldn't agree more.

Apple could maybe have gotten away with switching the 16GB RAM that came standard in all 14"-16" MBPs to the new, lower 8GB RAM in the 14" MBP if it hadn't kept the "Pro" in the name.

But of course they had to do their usual bath and switch, furthering devaluing the "Pro" branding.

The fact that the 8GB configuration is the only option you get when buying a M3 MBP 14" at retail explains why Apple's Bob Borcher is out doing his best to mislead consumers about RAM.

Whether you're blissfully ignorant of how low-spec'ed your new $1599 MBP is, or you're spending an additional $200, or more, and painfully aware, Apple wins in every scenario with its ridiculous prices.

 

[theluggage]

Let's say you're a student. You see that you can buy a Mac for as little as $499 (Mac mini through Education store), but there's no keyboard, mouse, or monitor.

That's not quite the same thing - You can pick up a cheap keyboard and mouse set for $20 and plug your Mini into a LCD TV if you like, re-use old peripherals or choose 3rd party alternatives. Part or the original point of the Mini was "bring your own keyboard, mouse and display".

The turn-off for the Mac Mini is the non-upgradeable 8GB RAM and 256GB HD combined with the absurd $400 upgrade to a more sensible 16/512 configuration. 8/256 on the cheapest base model might be justifiable, but adding $400 to that should be taking you to something like 24GB RAM/1 TB SSD.

 

[ric22]

They do not have a profit system that tiers out how much RAM everyone gets on an iPhone. If they did, which would suck, they would be doing this as well.

Good point. They still eventually have to relent and up Mac RAM. If an iPhone needs 8GB, and the work most of us do on Mac is considerably more demanding, surely the Mac needs more?

 

[mrmister]

Apple could maybe have gotten away with switching the 16GB RAM that came standard in all 14"-16" MBPs to the new, lower 8GB RAM in the 14" MBP if it hadn't kept the "Pro" in the name.

But of course they had to do their usual bath and switch, furthering devaluing the "Pro" branding.

Part of the policing power users do is getting really obsessed over what can and can't be called "Pro".

Guess what? Apple already named it.

The M3 MBP is clearly for people who want the MBP body and the features it comes with, but don't need M3 Pro or Max performance.

Starting at 8GB is the only thing that even makes sense in the current lineup.

 

[floral]

Is... is this a bait post? I don't... see any points being made here, it's just a very controversial opinion that is VERY prone to a userbase that's clearly wanted more base RAM for ages. I don't get it.

 

[mrmister]

If an iPhone needs 8GB, and the work most of us do on Mac is considerably more demanding, surely the Mac needs more?

There's your fallacy—"most of us" aren't doing all that more demanding things on their Macs.

 

[mrmister]

Is... is this a bait post? I don't... see any points being made here, it's just a very controversial opinion that is VERY prone to a userbase that's clearly wanted more base RAM for ages. I don't get it.

Hahahahah in a manner of speaking.

It's good practice for me, and the people who live here deserve a spanking now and then. Many of them clearly haven't thought about who actually uses Macs, or how they are power users, or any of a number of things.

 

[Abazigal]

My advice is to buy less Macs, less frequently, and Apple will soon be forced to genuinely impress us again.

I am not sure I understand this train of thought.

If people are upgrading less frequently, I don't think it's because current Macs are too expensive or not good enough, but because their current existing Macs are still good enough for their needs. This is the exact opposite of forced obsolescence, because Apple hardware both lasts and is supported for so long.

Apple doesn't need you to keep buying Macs. They just need you to keep using them. I am currently using an M1 MBA. 3 years later, performance is still great, and I legitimately have little desire to upgrade because it more than suffices for what I do with it. A new Mac isn't on the horizon anytime soon, but at the same time, I sure as hell ain't switching to windows in the near foreseeable future either.