Guesses on M4 Pro base RAM configurations?

[klaaside]

Hiya,

Any guesses / estimates on whether the M4 Pro base RAM configuration will also get an upgrade, given (supposedly) the base M4 will get bumped up to 16GB? Within (or in vicinity) of the same price point (as current M3 Pro).

The one major rationale I can think of it happening is with 16GB base model, the value proposition for one to go for a M4 Pro with 18GB makes less sense. However, for Apple to bump up RAM from 18 to 24 (let's say), but keep (roughly) the same price point, seems kinda insane.. for the lack of a better word.

Thoughts?

 

[russell_314]

8 GB/ 256 GB is my guess 😂

 

[eltoslightfoot]

It'll be 16 minimum, just about the time we all need 32...

 

[theluggage]

The one major rationale I can think of it happening is with 16GB base model, the value proposition for one to go for a M4 Pro with 18GB makes less sense. However, for Apple to bump up RAM from 18 to 24 (let's say), but keep (roughly) the same price point, seems kinda insane..

I think the M4/M4 Pro/M4 Max progression might change somewhat - it already did somewhat with the M3 series, with the M3 Max getting a bigger upgrade than the M3 Pro, and the M3 Pro becoming a unique chip rather than a Max die with half the GPU (and a few other bells and whistles) lopped off, and the Max pushing towards Ultra territory, but in a laptop.

Between what we already know about the base M4 and the fairly plausible rumours, the base M4 has already pushed further into Pro territory - not just on CPU/GPU power but by adding more USB4 ports and the display support to make them proper TB4. It's also gone from 24 to 32GB of max RAM.

So perhaps we will see the M4 Pro models pushed up the price range a couple of notches, maybe with a binned 8-core regular M4 model as base and a 10-core regular M4 at the current M2 Pro base point, and/or a 16" base M4... and the M4 Max becoming even more of a "serious callers only" option than it already is.

A more expensive M4 Pro MBP might well need to come with 24 or 36GB RAM to be taken seriously. However, if you're replacing a M2/M3 "Pro" a base, 10-core M4 might actually be the logical replacement/upgrade.

Just speculating - no evidence.

 

[mi7chy]

Pro should be 18GB base since some use cases already exceed 16GB. 24GB base would be nice but too generous for Apple.

 

[MrGunny94]

Pro should start at 32Gb if they bump up base models on Air/Pro tbh

 

[tangfish]

I care most about the storage. If they up the max storage I’ll upgrade. If not, I’ll continue waiting.

 

[leman]

It they are bumping up the RAM on base model to 16GB the base M4 Pro will most likely be 24GB (assuming they keep the 192-bit memory interface).

 

[sublunar]

It they are bumping up the RAM on base model to 16GB the base M4 Pro will most likely be 24GB (assuming they keep the 192-bit memory interface).

Don't the M3 Pro MacBook Pros come with 18Gb base RAM? Admittedly that's a bit close to the 16Gb that the M4 may be getting as base RAM but 24Gb RAM would surely attract a price increase - probably of $100/£100 if that becomes the base spec Pro SKU. I guess it makes sense to present that as a straight up upgrade.

And 24Gb is not currently available as an option for a BTO on an M3 MacBook Pro - you can jump from 18Gb to 36Gb although 48Gb is an option. Wouldn't 12Gb RAM sticks be a bit of a niche size too?

If they went with a 24Gb base SKU then 36Gb and then 48Gb would be the next likely upgrades.

 

[leman]

Don't the M3 Pro MacBook Pros come with 18Gb base RAM? Admittedly that's a bit close to the 16Gb that the M4 may be getting as base RAM but 24Gb RAM would surely attract a price increase - probably of $100/£100 if that becomes the base spec Pro SKU. I guess it makes sense to present that as a straight up upgrade.

And 24Gb is not currently available as an option for a BTO on an M3 MacBook Pro - you can jump from 18Gb to 36Gb although 48Gb is an option. Wouldn't 12Gb RAM sticks be a bit of a niche size too?

If they went with a 24Gb base SKU then 36Gb and then 48Gb would be the next likely upgrades.

M3 Pro uses three RAM modules while M3 uses two RAM modules. The RAM sizes derive from these facts. E.g. the 18GB configuration uses 3x6GB modules.

My line of thought is that if Apple adopts 16GB as standard for M4, they might be moving to 8GB modules as baseline, so the smallest configuration they can build for M4 Pro would be 24GB. We should also keep in mind that these are new modules as Apple moves to LPDDR5X. There are many unknown factors in play such as the RAM module sizes, pricing, and availability. It is entirely possible that 8GB per module is the cheapest option available to Apple.

 

[sublunar]

M3 Pro uses three RAM modules while M3 uses two RAM modules. The RAM sizes derive from these facts. E.g. the 18GB configuration uses 3x6GB modules.

My line of thought is that if Apple adopts 16GB as standard for M4, they might be moving to 8GB modules as baseline, so the smallest configuration they can build for M4 Pro would be 24GB. We should also keep in mind that these are new modules as Apple moves to LPDDR5X. There are many unknown factors in play such as the RAM module sizes, pricing, and availability. It is entirely possible that 8GB per module is the cheapest option available to Apple.

This would be the case in particular if Apple are thinking 4 generations ahead starting with M4 (or already started with m3?)

Regular meetings with Micron and Toshiba etc May have discussed likely ram prices forecast for the next 4-6 years (for hedging purposes) and the notion of smaller ram chips being discontinued in future may have been a driver in SKU specs. Ram prices have been falling these last few years so best case scenario sees apple upping ram at no extra cost, obviously worst case is apple passing it on at Apple prices. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between, we will find out in a few days.

On the other hand SSD prices are only recently starting to cool down after a spike in the last few months. Apple will already have hedged against this.

Bear in mind that Apple may already be using bigger ram chips as witnessed in the iPad Pros with their ‘12gb’ configuration.

And reducing swap file usage with more RAM might also be a strategy in improving benchmarks in future macs too.

 

[Sezel]

Bear in mind that Apple may already be using bigger ram chips as witnessed in the iPad Pros with their ‘12gb’ configuration.

But no one knows how the 12gb works in the iPad Pro M4 because only 8gb is utilised in base configuration.
Physical hardware is of no use if it is not enabled or used by the software.

 

[leman]

But no one knows how the 12gb works in the iPad Pro M4 because only 8gb is utilised in base configuration.
Physical hardware is of no use if it is not enabled or used by the software.

I think the point is that smaller packages might already be unavailable or cost more. Although from what I understand the claim about 12GB in the iPad is contested.

If we roll with the idea that 6GB is the smallest available package, then the natural progression is 12GB (M4), 18GB (M4 Pro), etc.

Do note that M3 family does some weird economic balancing. They cut down the memory bus size for many SoCs and they use a large amount of different RAM module sizes. That can’t be easy or cheap logistics-wise. There might be a financial benefit to Apple in streamlining all this.

 

[theluggage]

I think the point is that smaller packages might already be unavailable or cost more. Although from what I understand the claim about 12GB in the iPad is contested.

If it's not just fake news, my guess would be that there was a temporary shortage of 4GB chips (or maybe a limited batch of cheap/binned 6GB chips) - so some iPad models went out with 2 x 6GB chips instead as a short-term solution, and Apple always intended to revert to 2x4GB once the supply was sorted out.

Clue is, there's no official 12GB iPad or 4GB "upgrade" option - it's just 8 or 16, and the 16GB also comes with a lot more storage. If Apple were going to make 12GB M4 packages in quantity for another model/product then it might be economical to make a "knobbled" 12->8GB version of that rather than separately make 8GB packages - but I don't see the sense in making 12GB SoCs just to knobble all of them to 8GB unless it's to fill a temporary gap.

Regular meetings with Micron and Toshiba etc May have discussed likely ram prices forecast for the next 4-6 years (for hedging purposes) and the notion of smaller ram chips being discontinued in future may have been a driver in SKU specs.

I think the actual commodity cost of RAM is pretty low down the list of influences on base specs and pricing.
Apple's RAM upgrades (and the usually-matching price gaps between stock models) are already 4x the going retail rate of comparable products like the new LPDDR5 CAMM modules or higher-spec NVME M.2 SSDs - so, given Apple's component buying power, the mark-up over cost must be immense.

Call me cynical, but I suspect it's more like Apple marketing choosing the strategic prices for the "good/better/best" base models and BTO upgrade steps first and then deciding what minimum specs each model can get away with at the price to minimise the bill of materials...

I think the cause-and-effect is more:
If Apple decides that the market will bear higher Mac prices, the prices will go up.
If Apple decides that 8GB base RAM - or 18GB with the Pro chips - is no longer defensible for the markets those products are aimed at, the RAM size will increase.

 

[sublunar]

I think the point is that smaller packages might already be unavailable or cost more. Although from what I understand the claim about 12GB in the iPad is contested.

If we roll with the idea that 6GB is the smallest available package, then the natural progression is 12GB (M4), 18GB (M4 Pro), etc.

Do note that M3 family does some weird economic balancing. They cut down the memory bus size for many SoCs and they use a large amount of different RAM module sizes. That can’t be easy or cheap logistics-wise. There might be a financial benefit to Apple in streamlining all this.

M3 RAM configurations are bizarre for sure having had a close look at the M3 Pro MacBook Pro SKUs.

Apple won't be looking at RAM available this year, they'll be forecasting what the landscape will look like in 3-4 years (or generations if Mac mini/nano isn't going to be an annual update product).

In this scenario, they might look at RAM chips that will still be around in 4-6 years, come to an agreement on prices and plan their SKUs accordingly.

I think the actual commodity cost of RAM is pretty low down the list of influences on base specs and pricing.
Apple's RAM upgrades (and the usually-matching price gaps between stock models) are already 4x the going retail rate of comparable products like the new LPDDR5 CAMM modules or higher-spec NVME M.2 SSDs - so, given Apple's component buying power, the mark-up over cost must be immense.

Call me cynical, but I suspect it's more like Apple marketing choosing the strategic prices for the "good/better/best" base models and BTO upgrade steps first and then deciding what minimum specs each model can get away with at the price to minimise the bill of materials...

I think the cause-and-effect is more:
If Apple decides that the market will bear higher Mac prices, the prices will go up.
If Apple decides that 8GB base RAM - or 18GB with the Pro chips - is no longer defensible for the markets those products are aimed at, the RAM size will increase.

There's a very old Steve Jobs led article which explains the modern Apple pricing pricing model which I'm not going to look at now where he equated Apple to a luxury brand - and they generally pick a price point and stick to it for a determined length of time. Minimum length of time being until the next refresh, maximum being (for example) 4 generations of a specific form factor and the point at which a new form factor comes out - let's put a pin in my notion of Mac Nano for later.

Unlike PC box shifters like Dell who do sales all the time where the same PC eventually drops in price until it's replaced with the next Intel CPU etc, Luxury goods don't get discounted by the designer label - eg you won't see a Louis Vuitton store ever doing a discount on the same bag.

Apple's version of this is to introduce a Mac, and sell it for $X from launch day till day of discontinuation with very few exceptions. And those exceptions usually come on refresh day. For Non-US Apple Stores, currency fluctuations can change the price of everything in the store if severe enough - check out the big Brexit increase of 2020 in the UK.

This lends credibility to the idea of a Mac as a luxury item and enhances the brand - also keeps used values high if the perception is that Apple don't generally discount (unless it's Black Friday or you're a student).

As you may notice - third party retailers like Amazon, Best Buy, Costco, Argos, Very, etc must get tacit permission to do discounts at specific times of year - this allows Apple to shift stuff at a discount without sullying the brand in an Apple Store. These box shifters will also gets stocks of discontinued Apple stuff - like for example an iPhone 12 or an M1 MBA if you really want one. I guess that will allow Apple to get people into the Apple ecosystem without lowering themselves to producing something that cheap. I would guess they'll be getting stocks of these made somewhere as the idea that they have warehouses of original unsold M1 MBAs or iPhone 12 (or now 13) pretty absurd.

Anyway, this I believe this applies to Apple's component purchasing mentality. They'll have a hedged agreement to purchase so many units of RAM chips for multiple refreshes of a Mac over several years. This will allow them to keep the same price over multiple years of a specific product - let's say the 13.6" MacBook Air M2 for example. They just keep the spec the same and the price the same for years on end. Apple's profit margin over time will only increase towards the end of the deal as price of the chips will drop for them, so they might take a smaller than usual profit in the earlier months/years of the deal. But it's obviously still a margin acceptable for them.

Remember the constant moaning about the Haswell Moble Mac mini 2014 becoming ever worser value until it was finally replaced by the 2018 Coffee Lake Intel? Apple never ever addressed the price of that machine, never assigned engineering resources to update the chipset, never even did something as simple as restructuring the spec - eg adding more RAM or storage combinations to keep it modern and boost sales (except at third party retailers).

Dell would have cut the price over weeks and months and/or introduced spec bumps - or even discontinued it.

So with years of experience behind us, we understand that at point of release a base spec model of a specific new line Mac is the best value it's going to be because I expect Apple to maintain that price point for years - the value curve starts to dip from day 1 if you compare to a Dell PC. Best example I can think of there is old 2008 Mac Pros - wasn't there a point where they were a really good deal compared to Intel box shifters because Apple got early access to the CPUs that PC workstation users were after?

Which brings me back to the Mac Nano - for those of you still awake - where there is still a marketing line that Apple can take to shake up a product's pricing structure (for better or for worse). If Apple just call the next Mac mini a Mini they may have to compare it size wise and PRICE wise with the previous Mini - if anything changes.

If they launch a Nano product, they don't have to explain why an M4 Pro Nano has got fewer ports than the M2 Pro Mac mini. Or explain why the USB-A ports have gone.

They'll just say it's a newer, smaller, better machine - have a look at the good, better, best SKUs and choose the one that suits you.

If it starts with 16Gb RAM (due to AI) and therefore $799, then they might keep an M2 Mini 8/256 around either officially or unofficially at the third party retailers for $599 with no possibility for upgrades - just to make the new Nano look a better buy. Yes, the marketing folks may have been told by the engineering guys that they MUST start with 16Gb to use AI - they'll have to suck it up and see.

The strategy might have to involve basic old M2 models to stay in the range as entry level models - either officially or unofficially. Look at how they have segmented the iPad Air M2 and Pro M4 for an idea as to how that'll go. Or could Apple actually decide that a smaller than expected price increase will raise the average selling price enough that they don't need that M2 starter model throughout the range?

Either way, a Mac Nano could continue the mini reputation for being great value, perhaps even better value than the mini. We may be only 8-9 days away from finding out...

 

[theorist9]

We should also keep in mind that these are new modules as Apple moves to LPDDR5X.

Even though the M4 iPad is LPDDR5X (est. at 7500 MHz), what do you think the chances are they'll use LPDDR6 for the M4 Pro/Max?

The M1 was initially released on the Mini with LPDDR4X, but the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra featured LPDDR5. So there is precedence for Apple using a later gen of RAM on higher-tier but same-gen chips

 

[leman]

Even though the M4 iPad is LPDDR5X (est. at 7500 MHz), what do you think the chances are they'll use LPDDR6 for the M4 Pro/Max?

The M1 was initially released on the Mini with LPDDR4X, but the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra featured LPDDR5. So there is precedence for Apple using a later gen of RAM on higher-tier but same-gen chips

LPDDR5 was already available - for a few years if I recall, when M1 Pro has been introduced. LPDDR6 will likely take years until it is being produced in volumes high enough.

Then again, it’s Apple. I wouldn’t be surprised if they come out with their own RAM standard

 

[theluggage]

Apple won't be looking at RAM available this year, they'll be forecasting what the landscape will look like in 3-4 years (or generations if Mac mini/nano isn't going to be an annual update product).

Nah. This year's computers will need to use stuff available this year. At the current rate, in 3-4 years Apple will likely be on M6 SoCs with different memory bus configurations will be or whether LPDDR7 will be out... and there will likely be MacBook Air and MacBook Pro refreshes every year to 18 months, since those are the flagship products. Odds are that Apple will be looking at what's going to be available in 3-4 years, because they are likely already hard at work on the M5 and probably starting to plan the M6. Most of the decisions about the M4 range would have been made a couple of years back. What will happen - probably on a shorter timescale - is that the smaller LPDDR dies will fall out of demand (esp. with 16GB becoming the minimum for Windows' AI features) and go up in price w.r.t. the larger ones and wipe out any savings Apple makes by skimping on RAM and storage.

Mac Minis, Studios etc. do seem to lag behind the curve - but that is most likely because desktops have dropped way down Apple's priority list and sell in tiny numbers - the money is in laptops and mobile, and for a lot of the 2010-2020 period many industry pundits predicted that even laptops would be replaced by mobile (remember Tim Cook standing up on stage waving an iPad saying something like "I can't imagine why I'd want a PC!".

Yup, the Mini range got a downgrade in 2014 and languished for 4 years for an upgrade, but the Mac Pro was already an outdated design (and discontinued in the EU) by 2013, then got a... controversial re-design that languished for the next 5-6 years... and they still don't make the "pick-up truck" mini-tower Mac that some people have wanted since 2012. so I don't think you need any explanation beyond

Now, with Apple Silicon, the desktops use the same SoCs - including RAM configurations - as laptop and iPad Pro so it should be much easier for Apple to keep them in step, and more economical to only have to make one range of SoCs. We don't really have enough data to extrapolate: the iMac missed out on M2, but skipped to M3 (maybe they just wanted to stop making M1s), the Mini was in the first batch of M1 machines (but never got the M1 Pro) and got a reasonably timely update to M2/M2 Pro - as did the Studio. Neither the Mini or the Studio got an M3 update - but then it looks like the entire M3 range was a short-term stopgap, and it doesn't look like an M3 Ultra was ever planned. So I think its really hard to pick out a Grand Plan.

There's a very old Steve Jobs led article which explains the modern Apple pricing pricing model which I'm not going to look at now where he equated Apple to a luxury brand - and they generally pick a price point and stick to it for a determined length of time.

Well, yes - the iMac has started at $1299 since 1998!!!
The MacBook Pro is trickier, but if you cheat a bit and count the regular-M3 "two port" entry-level MBP as a new line that appeared in 2016, the "full spec" MacBook Pro has been $1999 since 2006! The base Mac Mini has gone from $500 in 2005 to $700 in 2017 and then back to $600.

Let's just say that if, today, you were handed a 10 or 20 year old Mac price list with just the model names, no specs, the only real shock would probably be the $7k Mac Pro. Also, most of the price-points stayed pretty much the same over the Intel to Apple Silicon switch (I love pointing out that a 2020 top-spec 5k 10-core iMac with Apple's 32GB RAM upgrade costs almost exactly the same as a 12-core Mac Studio plus Studio Display).

(Any other industry, you'd have to worry about inflation - but the sticker price on - say - a half-decent small/home-business computer - really hasn't changed much since the 1980s, even though the specs have increased by a few orders of magnitude...)

So, yes, I completely agree that Apple's marketing is based on price points and model names (and high margins that can absorb any changes in component costs) rather than specs - but what you get at those price points has changed dramatically - both in terms of specs and design - over time.

Also, Apple do cut prices sometimes (it happened with the M2 MacBook Air when the M3 was introduced) or bump base specs without a major model change (the base iMac Pro and Mac Pro Trashcan specs all got quietly shifted up a step when they got old enough to shave).

If it starts with 16Gb RAM (due to AI) and therefore $799, then they might keep an M2 Mini 8/256 around either officially or unofficially at the third party retailers for $599 with no possibility for upgrades - just to make the new Nano look a better buy.

There's really no justification for Apple to raise prices to "pay for" a bump to 16GB. The pressure is because similarly-priced computers offer specs and the chips for 16GB will be getting more affordable w.r.t. the smaller ones as demand increases. If Apple wants to increase their price points, they'll increase their price points and not offer an escape route.

They've certainly used the keep-the-old-model approach to keep a $999 MacBook Air (a strategically important price point) on the books, and it is standard procedure for the iPhone - but those are huge-volume markets that can stand a bit of product overlap, and I'm sure they sell a ton of both every time "back to school" season rolls around. That's usually accompanied by a price cut (e.g. the current $999 Air started out at $1199 when it was a new product). The Mini is already a relatively niche product by Apple's standards and I don't see any pressure on Apple to offer anything priced below the "latest" Mini. The Mini - unlike the Air - isn't really something people buy to get email and update their Facebook page.

Whatever happens there will be refurb and old stock on sale. Also, 8GB/256GB on a $600 headless box is already sub-par, and once the M2 processor is two generations behind... sorry - make it $400 and I might bite.

 

[AirpodsNow]

So, yes, I completely agree that Apple's marketing is based on price points and model names (and high margins that can absorb any changes in component costs) rather than specs - but what you get at those price points has changed dramatically - both in terms of specs and design - over time.

Also, Apple do cut prices sometimes (it happened with the M2 MacBook Air when the M3 was introduced) or bump base specs without a major model change (the base iMac Pro and Mac Pro Trashcan specs all got quietly shifted up a step when they got old enough to shave).

There's really no justification for Apple to raise prices to "pay for" a bump to 16GB. The pressure is because similarly-priced computers offer specs and the chips for 16GB will be getting more affordable w.r.t. the smaller ones as demand increases. If Apple wants to increase their price points, they'll increase their price points and not offer an escape route.

They've certainly used the keep-the-old-model approach to keep a $999 MacBook Air (a strategically important price point) on the books, and it is standard procedure for the iPhone - but those are huge-volume markets that can stand a bit of product overlap, and I'm sure they sell a ton of both every time "back to school" season rolls around. That's usually accompanied by a price cut (e.g. the current $999 Air started out at $1199 when it was a new product). The Mini is already a relatively niche product by Apple's standards and I don't see any pressure on Apple to offer anything priced below the "latest" Mini. The Mini - unlike the Air - isn't really something people buy to get email and update their Facebook page.

Whatever happens there will be refurb and old stock on sale. Also, 8GB/256GB on a $600 headless box is already sub-par, and once the M2 processor is two generations behind... sorry - make it $400 and I might bite.

Cost up vs market down
Apple applies the price strategy of 'market down' (market based) instead of 'cost up' (cost based) approach. I see a lot of people assumes you add up all the cost of a machine and then put a markup price (margin) and sell it. So understandably those people might find the ram prices to be extortion's practices. Or when apple removes something like chargers, they assume the price should go down, instead apple becomes more about 'more' profits.

Apple mostly market down approach
Apple's pricing strategy is less market / price volatile vs the way Samsung or dell sell their products more seemingly using the 'cost up' approach and slashing down prices as soon as demand caves in after initial launch, resulting in the remaining year of low vs lower pricing where retailers might be less inclined to sell it due to low (or losing) margins. Apple seems to aim for a price point and then calculate how much 'cost' can they afford and aim for that. The Vision Pro is a good example for that, I think they would like to hold this $3499 price point for a good while with newer Pros in that price range?

Promotion product strategy - base model (low margin & promoted) vs CTO (higher margin)
So Apple's strategy to provide market a MacBook Pro (with 8GB) for $1599 (1600) might also be intentional, to hit that particularly market price (in the USA, might be more expensive elsewhere). Perhaps there are competing products there. Also, having an obviously 'less' product, but still a MBP, those that wishes for a 'better' product, they can upsell for $1799 (1800), assuming the margins are much better.

Furthermore, retailers like to discount products so they attract people to their store and also sell other more higher margin stuff. So the base models are often 'promoted' with lower pricing. So most base models are sold elsewhere often from Day 1 with $50 or $100 less. However the base models should be cover 'most' needs, also a reasons why they removed a port to minimize specs. I would imagine that it's more difficult to upsell for apple if they introduce the lowest price MBP with 16GB. This reduces the sales for upsell / cto directly from apple at $1800. Since 16GB would be enough for most people. Apple should make it in such a way that most consumers want to have a higher spec than base model, the only way is to go directly to apple's site and pay directly to apple (which means higher margins, since they don't need to share it with other retailer).

My take
Therefore I find it hard to believe they would introduce a base 16GB MBP model for $1600, since it would lower their overall margins and harder to upsell users. Perhaps as some other users have said, they are gearing up for a x12 GB ram config (12, 24, 36, 48, 64, 96, 128, and higher for M4?). Perhaps with apple intelligence (marketing story), they might need to do so, but it's a tricky pricing / promotion strategy approach. Eventually it's not 'proven' that 8GB is not enough, since there are numerous reports that people find it's enough for their use. I also see my parents being happy to have only 8GB, but perhaps those should be MBA buyers and not MBP. Who knows.. it's just my own view.

 

[theluggage]

Perhaps there are competing products there.

(UK prices because I have to jump through hoops to get to the Lenovo US site)

ThinkPad T14s (Snapdragon X elite) £1629 for 32GB/512GB - or £1845 for 32GB/1TB with a more MBP-comparable HDR screen.

versus

14" M3 MacBook Pro - £1699 for 8GB/512GB, £2099 for 16GB/1TB, £2299 for 24GB/1TB - there's no 32GB option for the regular M3 but if it were, that would probably be £2499 at Apple's current £200-per-8GB rate.

I chose the Thinkpad because it's well established as a premium laptop brand. Snapdragon X elite because it's more comparable with Apple Silicon than any Intel/AMD machine. You can quibble endlessly over MacOS vs Windows or M-series vs. Snapdragon performance, but the Thinkpad in question is aimed at roughly the same market as the base-M-series MBPs. (Qualcomm have nothing to go up against the Mx Pro and Mx Max.... yet - but we're talking about the base machines here). You'll see similar specs on the premium laptops (maybe not the cheaper mass-market ranges - but Apple doesn't have a dog in that race) from Dell, HP etc. - even Microsoft Surface Laptops, which certainly aspire to Apple-like quality and have previously also aspired to Apple-like prices and skimpy specs have upped their game in the RAM department.

I know that many people here will dismiss anything PC as not comparable with a Mac - they've obviously never had to justify to an employer why the need an expensive Mac instead of the standard issue Lenovo PC. Like it or not, these are being marketed to people who need them for the same sort of things as Mac users.

also a reasons why they removed a port to minimize specs.

...the regular M1, M2 and M3 SoCs physically only have 2 USB4/TB controllers - and could only support 1 external display as well as the internal one. Even the Intel entry-level MacBook Pros were likely limited by the available PCIe lanes on the lower-end (c.f. the 'real' MBPs).

The M4 die pictures suggest that they have 4 TB controllers, and the leaked M4 MBP specs suggest that the new entry-level MBPs will have 3 TB4-branded ports (and TB4 means support for at least 2 external displays).

Therefore I find it hard to believe they would introduce a base 16GB MBP model for $1600, since it would lower their overall margins and harder to upsell users.

I'm not going to bet against a price rise - because the M4 will likely mean more ports and better display support which brings the machines closer in spec to the Mx Pro MBPs.

However, Apple have let themselves get really behind the curve on RAM and storage specs and I don't think 8GB in any laptop costing significantly more than $1000 is defensible any more.

Also - the rumours suggest that there are now going to be 8 and 10 CPU core variants of the "regular M4" MacBook Pro which gives Apple another dimension to upsell people on - so instead of the current 8GB/512GB, 8GB/1TB and 16GB/1TB stock models all with the same 8 core processor, they could have 8 core 16GB/512GB, 10 core 16GB/1TB and 24GB/1TB 10 core models as their good/better/best trio.

If M4-series is getting extra CPU and GPU cores across the range, that also brings more scope for "binned" models for upselling in the rest of the range, too.

...and if the claims that Apple are aiming to shift the whole range tp M4 in record time are true, that's a good opportunity to update the price structure, because even Apple can't charge $200-per-8GB forever.

 

[AirpodsNow]

(UK prices because I have to jump through hoops to get to the Lenovo US site)

ThinkPad T14s (Snapdragon X elite) £1629 for 32GB/512GB - or £1845 for 32GB/1TB with a more MBP-comparable HDR screen.

versus

14" M3 MacBook Pro - £1699 for 8GB/512GB, £2099 for 16GB/1TB, £2299 for 24GB/1TB - there's no 32GB option for the regular M3 but if it were, that would probably be £2499 at Apple's current £200-per-8GB rate.

Well, are they really comparable? Do buyers consider these two machines before buying. With a purchase analysis on consumers, one would shortlist a number of products, but I would find it hard to believe that most buyers would put a MBP 14” against a new Snapdragon elite, although the internet reviewers would assume so. I find this highly unlikely. Similar to when people compare an iPhone next to a Google Pixel, knowing the market shares, it‘s rather unlikely that that is such a contender. It’s not only about product specs, but also ‘target audience‘, are snapdragon x elite products targeted to the same buyers as a MBP 14”?

I’m not trying to ‘dismiss’ this, but I would like to know, if possible at all, what are the competing products of a MBP.

 

[AirpodsNow]

they've obviously never had to justify to an employer why the need an expensive Mac instead of the standard issue Lenovo PC.

(Sorry, somehow multi quote doesn’t work on my ipad).

Do you mean TCO (total cost of ownership) or just purchasing price? Eventually it’s a mix of choices what would consist as expensive…. There are good cases to make where a mac are cheaper. Cost of maintenance, support, device management, resell value at the end, employee satisfaction.

 

[AirpodsNow]

However, Apple have let themselves get really behind the curve on RAM and storage specs and I don't think 8GB in any laptop costing significantly more than $1000 is defensible any more

Not defensible to whom? Consumers, enterprise? It was stated in the past when the MBP 13” touchbar was still around that was also ‘not defensible’ but it lasted as long as it did apparently for corporate buyers. I would assume this is the same case, where Apple or their corporate resellers would be eager to sell the lowest cost MBP to enterprise with 8GB because the price is ‘lower’, or upsell them a 16GB model for cheaper to make the sale. having a 8GB MBP offers them to do a lot of room to negotiate deals, which I think is quite useful. (Similar to edu models with less specs during intel iMacs).

So, I don’t know whether you approach this from a single consumer POV or the corporate or what? I also see that in less developed economies, Apple products are comparatively far more expensive for there average income. So having lower priced products is great.

I believe also that a lot of users simply to ‘max’ out the machines they buy. Or they simply don’t know. In my own experience doing tech support to (older but als having more disposable income) people, they are surprisingly patient with older macs. I live in a ‘tech’ bubble knowing how quicker things could or should be, but in my experience it seems a lot of users simply don’t know/care for it. Similarly to people driving SUV/trucks just for groceries. So it’s not all specs related Purchasing behaviour.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

(UK prices because I have to jump through hoops to get to the Lenovo US site)

ThinkPad T14s (Snapdragon X elite) £1629 for 32GB/512GB - or £1845 for 32GB/1TB with a more MBP-comparable HDR screen.

versus

14" M3 MacBook Pro - £1699 for 8GB/512GB, £2099 for 16GB/1TB, £2299 for 24GB/1TB - there's no 32GB option for the regular M3 but if it were, that would probably be £2499 at Apple's current £200-per-8GB rate.

I chose the Thinkpad because it's well established as a premium laptop brand. Snapdragon X elite because it's more comparable with Apple Silicon than any Intel/AMD machine. You can quibble endlessly over MacOS vs Windows or M-series vs. Snapdragon performance, but the Thinkpad in question is aimed at roughly the same market as the base-M-series MBPs. (Qualcomm have nothing to go up against the Mx Pro and Mx Max.... yet - but we're talking about the base machines here). You'll see similar specs on the premium laptops (maybe not the cheaper mass-market ranges - but Apple doesn't have a dog in that race) from Dell, HP etc. - even Microsoft Surface Laptops, which certainly aspire to Apple-like quality and have previously also aspired to Apple-like prices and skimpy specs have upped their game in the RAM department.

I know that many people here will dismiss anything PC as not comparable with a Mac - they've obviously never had to justify to an employer why the need an expensive Mac instead of the standard issue Lenovo PC. Like it or not, these are being marketed to people who need them for the same sort of things as Mac users.


...the regular M1, M2 and M3 SoCs physically only have 2 USB4/TB controllers - and could only support 1 external display as well as the internal one. Even the Intel entry-level MacBook Pros were likely limited by the available PCIe lanes on the lower-end (c.f. the 'real' MBPs).

The M4 die pictures suggest that they have 4 TB controllers, and the leaked M4 MBP specs suggest that the new entry-level MBPs will have 3 TB4-branded ports (and TB4 means support for at least 2 external displays).


I'm not going to bet against a price rise - because the M4 will likely mean more ports and better display support which brings the machines closer in spec to the Mx Pro MBPs.

However, Apple have let themselves get really behind the curve on RAM and storage specs and I don't think 8GB in any laptop costing significantly more than $1000 is defensible any more.

Also - the rumours suggest that there are now going to be 8 and 10 CPU core variants of the "regular M4" MacBook Pro which gives Apple another dimension to upsell people on - so instead of the current 8GB/512GB, 8GB/1TB and 16GB/1TB stock models all with the same 8 core processor, they could have 8 core 16GB/512GB, 10 core 16GB/1TB and 24GB/1TB 10 core models as their good/better/best trio.

If M4-series is getting extra CPU and GPU cores across the range, that also brings more scope for "binned" models for upselling in the rest of the range, too.

...and if the claims that Apple are aiming to shift the whole range tp M4 in record time are true, that's a good opportunity to update the price structure, because even Apple can't charge $200-per-8GB forever.

Every point here is fantastic and I completely agree.

 

[altaic]

(UK prices because I have to jump through hoops to get to the Lenovo US site)

ThinkPad T14s (Snapdragon X elite) £1629 for 32GB/512GB - or £1845 for 32GB/1TB with a more MBP-comparable HDR screen.

versus

14" M3 MacBook Pro - £1699 for 8GB/512GB, £2099 for 16GB/1TB, £2299 for 24GB/1TB - there's no 32GB option for the regular M3 but if it were, that would probably be £2499 at Apple's current £200-per-8GB rate.

I chose the Thinkpad because it's well established as a premium laptop brand. Snapdragon X elite because it's more comparable with Apple Silicon than any Intel/AMD machine. You can quibble endlessly over MacOS vs Windows or M-series vs. Snapdragon performance, but the Thinkpad in question is aimed at roughly the same market as the base-M-series MBPs. (Qualcomm have nothing to go up against the Mx Pro and Mx Max.... yet - but we're talking about the base machines here). You'll see similar specs on the premium laptops (maybe not the cheaper mass-market ranges - but Apple doesn't have a dog in that race) from Dell, HP etc. - even Microsoft Surface Laptops, which certainly aspire to Apple-like quality and have previously also aspired to Apple-like prices and skimpy specs have upped their game in the RAM department.

I know that many people here will dismiss anything PC as not comparable with a Mac - they've obviously never had to justify to an employer why the need an expensive Mac instead of the standard issue Lenovo PC. Like it or not, these are being marketed to people who need them for the same sort of things as Mac users.


...the regular M1, M2 and M3 SoCs physically only have 2 USB4/TB controllers - and could only support 1 external display as well as the internal one. Even the Intel entry-level MacBook Pros were likely limited by the available PCIe lanes on the lower-end (c.f. the 'real' MBPs).

The M4 die pictures suggest that they have 4 TB controllers, and the leaked M4 MBP specs suggest that the new entry-level MBPs will have 3 TB4-branded ports (and TB4 means support for at least 2 external displays).


I'm not going to bet against a price rise - because the M4 will likely mean more ports and better display support which brings the machines closer in spec to the Mx Pro MBPs.

However, Apple have let themselves get really behind the curve on RAM and storage specs and I don't think 8GB in any laptop costing significantly more than $1000 is defensible any more.

Also - the rumours suggest that there are now going to be 8 and 10 CPU core variants of the "regular M4" MacBook Pro which gives Apple another dimension to upsell people on - so instead of the current 8GB/512GB, 8GB/1TB and 16GB/1TB stock models all with the same 8 core processor, they could have 8 core 16GB/512GB, 10 core 16GB/1TB and 24GB/1TB 10 core models as their good/better/best trio.

If M4-series is getting extra CPU and GPU cores across the range, that also brings more scope for "binned" models for upselling in the rest of the range, too.

...and if the claims that Apple are aiming to shift the whole range tp M4 in record time are true, that's a good opportunity to update the price structure, because even Apple can't charge $200-per-8GB forever.

Are you on Mac Rumors’ payroll? That must be disclosed.