Apple Stores Now Stock 14-Inch M3 MacBook Pro With 16GB of RAM

[seek3r]

What policy is that? Offering computers for people with minimal needs/requirements for less money?

Instead of forcing those people to buy a more expensive computer with greater memory that they'll never use? That smells very anti-consumer to me. And a bad policy.

Do you know how cheap RAM is? Apple can, easily, offer 12GB or 16GB as the base at the same price - and I’d actually bet on that happening with the M4 Airs

 

[citysnaps]

Do you know how cheap RAM is? Apple can, easily, offer 12GB or 16GB as the base at the same price - and I’d actually bet on that happening with the M4 Airs

Apple prices their products at roughly 40% GPM over COGS. A reasonable number.

The good news is, Apple tiers their computers based on a user's needs. Not everyone needs 32 GB of RAM, when 8 GB will be fine for millions of customers.

Need more memory? Simply pay for it. Need less memory? Save some money. Apple tries to offer products that meet a wide range of their customer's requirements. That's a good thing.

 

[nexx27]

You’re completely wrong.

They offer the entry HW with limited ram (might be ok for TODAY, but not for the lifetime of the device), and them overprices the upgrade.

So either you get a device that will have its lifespan reduced or you pay a ridiculous price (unfair and much higher price) than the market charges for a “capable device for its lifetime)

I pray one day, some 1st world country through some elevated culture will rule against apple and companies with something like:
- ram/disk or any consumable resource should be upgradable, dimensioned in accordance with further resources lifespan or be selected at configuration time with prices similar or compatible with the same resources in the market.

It should not be accepted by general public opinion, and then by law, to force customers to pay 200%, 300% or even 400% over the resource’s market price just because it is part of an “non-upgradable” device…

 

[citysnaps]

You’re completely wrong.

They offer the entry HW with limited ram (might be ok for TODAY, but not for the lifetime of the device), and them overprices the upgrade.

So either you get a device that will have its lifespan reduced or you pay a ridiculous price (unfair and much higher price) than the market charges for a “capable device for its lifetime)

I pray one day, some 1st world country through some elevated culture will rule against apple and companies with something like:
- ram/disk or any consumable resource should be upgradable, dimensioned in accordance with further resources lifespan or be selected at configuration time with prices similar or compatible with the same resources in the market.

It should not be accepted by general public opinion, and then by law, to force customers to pay 200%, 300% or even 400% over the resource’s market price just because it is part of an “non-upgradable” device…

Wrong? Nope.

That will never be happening. At least here on planet Earth. Apple offering memory that's user-upgradeable outside of their M-series SOCs and incurring a major performance hit is something they'll never do. And there's no organization that will ever mandate that.

You might be OK with degraded computer performance. No one else would ever find that acceptable.

If you want to stay with Apple computers your best option is to specify the amount of memory and storage you need. And pay for it.

 

[seek3r]

That will never be happening. At least here on planet Earth. Apple moving memory that's user-upgradeable outside of their M-series SOCs and incurring a major performance hit is something they'll never do. And there's no organization that will ever mandate that.

You might be OK with degraded performance. No one else would ever find that acceptable.

If you want to stay with Apple computers your best option is to specify the amount of memory and storage you need. And pay for it.

Also this is how chips have always evolved honestly, math coprocs, cache, etc all used to be separate and potentially upgradeable components too, but eventually they got integrated into the CPU.

 

[chucker23n1]

Apple prices their products at roughly 40% GPM over COGS. A reasonable number.

Yes, but this isn't about the product, but about the component. $200 for 8 to 16 isn't 40%, it's not even 400%, it's much higher than that.

I pray one day, some 1st world country through some elevated culture will rule against apple and companies with something like:
- ram/disk or any consumable resource should be upgradable, dimensioned in accordance with further resources lifespan or be selected at configuration time with prices similar or compatible with the same resources in the market.

Making it upgradeable will make it worse for most people. Should the RAM in the Apple Watch be upgradeable?

 

[jakey rolling]

How do you propose to meaningfully push Apple?

By reminding everyone, including Apple's most loyal fans, that there are alternatives on the market. Apple relies on their most loyal customers to not be aware of alternatives or to not be aware of how small a gap exists in the user-experience between macOS and other platforms. The more customers are aware, the less Apple can get away with.

Have Apple eliminate their 8 GB base memory computer option

Yes.

at a lower price

What lower price? Their 8GB option is priced at the same level that most of their competitors offer 16GB and 32GB standard.

And instead have Apple computers start with 16 GB of memory at a higher price?

No. Have Apple start with 16GB of memory at the price they offer 8GB right now instead of pocketing that $40 per unit difference.

How would millions of people with minimal needs/requirements feel about being forced to pay more money for a computer with memory they'll never need? That would be a sweet deal for Apple, but would be awful for the consumer.

You're throwing a strawman in there, or you're not getting the argument at all. Nobody says force users to pay more. They are saying that Apple should offer more for what users are already paying.

The reason for the 8GB minimum has nothing to do with offering a cheaper alternative to customers. It is all about segregating a market so that they can bundle other extraneous "features" people don't need in order to charge a large premium for the one feature that many customers actually need. It is about forcing either an early upgrade to the higher priced (and much higher margin) model, or about forcing an earlier-than-anticipated upgrade to a newer model altogether.

The reason why people like us will constantly call Apple out for it is so that the people who Apple's marketing machine targets can be more fully informed of the kind of compromise they will be making by buying an Apple product. You loyal customers might not like us doing that, but you should be thanking us - because it is we who are pushing Apple to be better. Apple certainly won't change for people like you who would buy their product anyway.

 

[jakey rolling]

Also this is how chips have always evolved honestly, math coprocs, cache, etc all used to be separate and potentially upgradeable components too, but eventually they got integrated into the CPU.

Math co-processors were something people either upgraded to or didn't based on their needs. There was never a need to upgrade to a "better" co-processor. They were eventually integrated into all CPUs because the need for that functionality became universal.

Caches were external for much the same reason, and earlier processors had them separate because they were a common source of failure. They are integrated now for the same reason co-processors are integrated now. Because people rarely had any reason to upgrade them.

RAM and storage are not the same thing. The need for an increase of both those things is still something that happens regularly to pretty much all computer users. The latter is even more important to have user-changeable because with SSDs, storage now becomes something that is a consumable part requiring eventual replacement.

 

[jakey rolling]

Apple prices their products at roughly 40% GPM over COGS. A reasonable number.

Offering 16GB instead of 8GB would reduce that margin to 39.995%. Still a reasonable number.

 

[seek3r]

Math co-processors were something people either upgraded to or didn't based on their needs. There was never a need to upgrade to a "better" co-processor. They were eventually integrated into all CPUs because the need for that functionality became universal.

Caches were external for much the same reason, and earlier processors had them separate because they were a common source of failure. They are integrated now for the same reason co-processors are integrated now. Because people rarely had any reason to upgrade them.

RAM and storage are not the same thing. The need for an increase of both those things is still something that happens regularly to pretty much all computer users. The latter is even more important to have user-changeable because with SSDs, storage now becomes something that is a consumable part requiring eventual replacement.

RAM is not all that dissimilar from cache, though I agree with you on storage

My point was more that as we’ve gotten better at integrating core system components either directly into the CPU, into a SoC, or into a chipset those components have typically ceased to be discrete. Sound cars getting integrated into chipsets, GPUs and vector processing in general into SoCs/CPUs, built in NICs, hell even the northbridge and in AS the southbridge too etc are all examples

 

[citysnaps]

By reminding everyone, including Apple's most loyal fans, that there are alternatives on the market. Apple relies on their most loyal customers to not be aware of alternatives or to not be aware of how small a gap exists in the user-experience between macOS and other platforms. The more customers are aware, the less Apple can get away with.


Yes.

What lower price? Their 8GB option is priced at the same level that most of their competitors offer 16GB and 32GB standard.


No. Have Apple start with 16GB of memory at the price they offer 8GB right now instead of pocketing that $40 per unit difference.



You're throwing a strawman in there, or you're not getting the argument at all. Nobody says force users to pay more. They are saying that Apple should offer more for what users are already paying.

The reason for the 8GB minimum has nothing to do with offering a cheaper alternative to customers. It is all about segregating a market so that they can bundle other extraneous "features" people don't need in order to charge a large premium for the one feature that many customers actually need. It is about forcing either an early upgrade to the higher priced (and much higher margin) model, or about forcing an earlier-than-anticipated upgrade to a newer model altogether.

The reason why people like us will constantly call Apple out for it is so that the people who Apple's marketing machine targets can be more fully informed of the kind of compromise they will be making by buying an Apple product. You loyal customers might not like us doing that, but you should be thanking us - because it is we who are pushing Apple to be better. Apple certainly won't change for people like you who would buy their product anyway.

Apple will not be doing what you're demanding. Apple sells computers to people who have a wide variety of different needs.

So what's your plan going forward? Complain until the cows come home? Which will not be happening. Purchase a computer from a manufacturer who offers what you're demanding? Stay perpetually unhappy? The good news is you have choices.

 

[jakey rolling]

So what's your plan going forward? Complain until the cows come home? Which will not be happening. Purchase a computer from a manufacturer who offers what you're demanding? Stay perpetually unhappy? The good news is you have choices.

My plan right now is to buy computers from manufacturers that value me as a customer and to recommend others do the same. I haven't been an unhappy customer in quite a long time.

 

[bgillander]

What lower price? Their 8GB option is priced at the same level that most of their competitors offer 16GB and 32GB standard.

Really? Are Canadians getting overcharged that much more than I thought, then? I was just pricing Microsoft Surface devices and the Surface Laptop Go 3 does start a few hundred dollars lower than the Air M3, but it still has 8 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD and the upgrade to 16 GB RAM is a $250 upgrade, just like the Air in Canada. The Surface Laptop 5 starts at $1399 for an i5 with 8/256 ($50 less than the base M3 Air is here at $1449), and the 512GB model is usually a $400 upgrade, but is currently on sale for only $1599. The 16/512 is $2049 (so $650 to upgrade the RAM and SSD, which would be $500 here for the Air, which I guess technically gets you a GPU upgrade, too), but that would be a terrible purchase at the moment, as the i7 version with the same configuration is on for $300 off at only $1999. The Surface tablet upgrade prices are no better.

I guess if I stick to the MacBook Pro M3, it starts here at $2099, so those 16/512 configurations are indeed cheaper than the base 8/512 Pro M3, but to get to a Microsoft laptop with a base model that actually includes 16/512, you would have to move up to the Surface Laptop Studio that starts at $2699 here. Of course these have things like touch screens that might add value for you, and the Studio has a pretty cool screen hinge, but the base RAM and upgrade pricing for Microsoft is not as different here as you make it sound there, and it is even sometimes worse than Apple’s.

The main advantage they have is they do at least go on sale, whereas Apple are not easy to find on sale in Canada. Best Buy will lower pricing on older Mac models for clearance, but I long for the Best Buy US sale prices shown for current models on some of these MacRumors posts.

 

[jakey rolling]

Really? Are Canadians getting overcharged that much more than I thought, then? I was just pricing Microsoft Surface devices and the Surface Laptop Go 3 does start a few hundred dollars lower than the Air M3, but it still has 8 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD and the upgrade to 16 GB RAM is a $250 upgrade, just like the Air in Canada. The Surface Laptop 5 starts at $1399 for an i5 with 8/256 ($50 less than the base M3 Air is here at $1449), and the 512GB model is usually a $400 upgrade, but is currently on sale for only $1599. The 16/512 is $2049 (so $650 to upgrade the RAM and SSD, which would be $500 here for the Air, which I guess technically gets you a GPU upgrade, too), but that would be a terrible purchase at the moment, as the i7 version with the same configuration is on for $300 off at only $1999. The Surface tablet upgrade prices are no better.

I'm not surprised you're seeing that for the MS Surface line. The Surface line has always been above-average in price compared to others with the same specs.

Dell's 13" XPS detachable 2-in-1 with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD is currently running about $1700 CAD. Still on the higher-side, but less than the Surface and cheaper than the MBP.

A Latitude 13" with 16GB and 256GB SSD is $1229 direct from Dell.ca
Costco.ca shows quite a number of laptops starting with 16GB of RAM for just over $1k. A Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 (2-in-1 reversible) is currently $1,049 with 16/512 at Costco.ca.

 

[ric22]

You’re completely wrong.

They offer the entry HW with limited ram (might be ok for TODAY, but not for the lifetime of the device), and them overprices the upgrade.

So either you get a device that will have its lifespan reduced or you pay a ridiculous price (unfair and much higher price) than the market charges for a “capable device for its lifetime)

I pray one day, some 1st world country through some elevated culture will rule against apple and companies with something like:
- ram/disk or any consumable resource should be upgradable, dimensioned in accordance with further resources lifespan or be selected at configuration time with prices similar or compatible with the same resources in the market.

It should not be accepted by general public opinion, and then by law, to force customers to pay 200%, 300% or even 400% over the resource’s market price just because it is part of an “non-upgradable” device…

I wholeheartedly agree. I wrote something very similar and the usual rogues gallery exploded with their typical angry defence of Apple and distain for pro-consumer, pro-environment, anti e-waste concepts.