How can Apple sell a Mac with 8GB of RAM in 2023 and call it "Pro"

[dmr727]

I agree with you to a certain extent. I have a base air for my sales job which is just spreadsheets and emails. it does it all fine but I check activity monitor I have daily swaps and yellow memory pressure for my basic tasks.

But that's the thing - if it's doing everything just fine, who cares what's happening in Activity Monitor?

 

[JamesMay82]

But that's the thing - if it's doing everything just fine, who cares what's happening in Activity Monitor?

Also true. My main concern is longevity as I cant see 8 gig lasting another 10 years

 

[dmr727]

Also true. My main concern is longevity as I cant see 8 gig lasting another 10 years

That's a good point. I certainly don't see it lasting 10 years.

 

[amancalledsun]

Apple used to call their computers that power users bought "PowerMac or PowerBook", I still like that better than "Pro".

This. Power users were always the target audience. Apple has abandoned that market.

Pick whatever word you want, you have an issue with this name in particular. Correct?
For whatever reason (and let's be honest, it's the reason I mentioned) you only have an issue with this name and not the many others that are equally meaningless or "misleading".

Please, explain:
1. Why is it only "Pro" that you seem to take issue with then?
2. Why do you think there's some industry-wide standard for how a "pro" machine should be specced? Hint: there isn't, but you're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.

Because, from what you've expressed so far, it really seems like you're just [disgruntled/unhappy/pick whatever work you think reflects your displeasure best] because you think "Pro" should mean some undefined minimum config that lives in your head and you will not share, rather than understanding that, just like every other product name in Apple's lineup, it doesn't actually mean anything concrete. It's just a name, and you're choosing to read too much into it rather than just look at the specs and decide if it will do what you want it to or not.

Really interested to see your answers to 1 and 2 above.

Edit: fixed some typos

you are far too invested in defending a misleading marketing term.

 

[mectojic]

How can Apple sell a Mac that weighs more than 0.01 lb in 2023 and call it "Air"?

 

[dmr727]

This. Power users were always the target audience. Apple has abandoned that market.

PowerMacs and PowerBooks have always had a low end version that catered to baseline consumers. Always. No different than today.

 

[Analog Kid]

Also true. My main concern is longevity as I cant see 8 gig lasting another 10 years

No machine will run contemporary OSes for 10 years. At some point, older hardware isn't supported. I think Apple typically provides OS feature updates for something like 5 years-- someone else may know a more accurate number-- and they support machines by generation, not configuration.

I would never imagine Apple issuing an OS update for machines with 16GB, but not for the 8GB version of the same generation machine.

So I think any machine of the same generation will likely last the same duration. Over spec'ing a machine now hoping, especially without a guarantee, to gain utility 8 years from now may not be the best strategy.

 

[boss.king]

you are far too invested in defending a misleading marketing term.

I'm not defending anything. I'm telling you not to bother with any of them - Pro, Max, Ultra, Air, Mini, all of it, it's meaningless.

You just don't have any coherent arguments to back up your initial vague claim of "Pro" supposedly having an industry standard (which, again, it doesn't, but you just keep ignoring that).

 

[myhaksown]

Right there with you, 8GB, while good for basic use is unacceptable for a pool of memory shared by a CPU and GPU. However, we did this exact same thing last time when we complained like toddlers about 4GB and Apple was WAY behind the curve then too. By the time 8GB was standard on the Mac we were all looking at 16gb on windows.

I agree with what someone said about bloat on windows causing the need for more RAM. But. macOS is evolving rapidly with poor quality control and that 8GB, while good today, will not hold up for long. You want change? Email Tim Cook. Complain TO Apple not in a forum.

I hope they figure out that they’re years behind the 16GB curve already and AS would likely benefit somewhat (especially on typical or large pro workflows) performance wise for low cost users (me).

I’m still using my maxed out 2019 15inch MBP. Won’t give it up until they stop skimping out on RAM like dumb idiots.

 

[Jack Neill]

I was kind of interested in the M3 14" Pro to replace my M1 Airs at first. I like the 14" screen and the SD slot. I would want a 1TB though and might as well bump it to 16GB and then just buy a M3 Pro for the price of the upgrades. I think its a decent replacement for the 13" old body Pro but I am done with the old 2016 look. I might just shop for a M1/2 16" instead and continue with my M1/16/1TB Air.

 

[nateo200]

I'm so incredibly disappointed in the 14" M3 MacBook Pro. There is NOTHING about that machine that is "Pro". 8GB of RAM in a pro machine is a joke, as is only being able to drive a single external display and having only two Thunderbolt ports. The 512GB SSD is merely "acceptable", which is fine in the base machine I suppose. What's aggravating is that Apple had to TRY to neuter this machine. This is better than the 13" Pro it's replacing, but just barely. I'm continuing to hold out for an M3 Air 15". I'm sure it'll only be $200 cheaper, but I'm not paying extra for the 14" non-Pro.

Yeah…16GBs of RAM and 1TB is barebones for a machine being labeled “pro” regardless of screen size. I thought the new ones started at 18GB/512GBs though?

 

[nateo200]

Apple must either be super confident in the capability of their unified memory (which is fair, unified memory has its advantages), or super stingy. It's likely both.

Also, I think if Apple had simply named it something different ("MacBook" instead of "MacBook Pro"), you wouldn't be complaining, even though it was the same exact device.

This. I appreciate that their unified memory is really efficient and you get a lot more performance than a comparable x86 windows set up but still. As far as I’m concerned a better lineup in terms of minimum specs
Would be:
-Entry level MacBook Air 13”: 8GB’s of memory/256GB SSD
-Entry level MacBook Air 15”: 8GB’s of memory/512GB SSD
-Entry level MacBook Pro 13”: 12GB/1TB
-Entry level MacBook Pro 14”: 16GB/1TB
-Entry level MacBook Pro 16”: 24GB/2TB

 

[amancalledsun]

I'm not defending anything. I'm telling you not to bother with any of them - Pro, Max, Ultra, Air, Mini, all of it, it's meaningless.

You just don't have any coherent arguments to back up your initial vague claim of "Pro" supposedly having an industry standard (which, again, it doesn't, but you just keep ignoring that).

Telling me to do anything is not within your purview.
Telling anyone that the terms are meaningless is merely an attempt to defend the use of those terms in an inaccurate and misleading manner. You are neither the final arbiter or nor the originator of the meaning behind these terms - unless, of course, you either work in Apple’s marketing department and have a vested interest, work for an Apple contractor who created the marketing campaign, or are the Apple executive who signed off on it. I’ll wait for you to explain to us which of the three of those you are.

 

[boss.king]

Telling me to do anything is not within your purview.
Telling anyone that the terms are meaningless is merely an attempt to defend the use of those terms in an inaccurate and misleading manner. You are neither the final arbiter or nor the originator of the meaning behind these terms - unless, of course, you either work in Apple’s marketing department and have a vested interest, work for an Apple contractor who created the marketing campaign, or are the Apple executive who signed off on it. I’ll wait for you to explain to us which of the three of those you are.

Lmao. You're so determined not to have a conversation about the thing that you're actually complaining about that this has got to be trolling. On to the ignore list you go.

 

[triptolemus]

My main concern is longevity as I cant see 8 gig lasting another 10 years

Is 10 years out of a laptop a a reasonable expectation? Particularly on a work machine?

Are you really showing up for those sales meetings with a 10 year old laptop?

 

[anshuvorty]

Is 10 years out of a laptop a a reasonable expectation? Particularly on a work machine?

Are you really showing up for those sales meetings with a 10 year old laptop?

Hate to say it, but there is an employee that I work with that is using a 2012-era Dell laptop...and my god are meetings with them something else....yeesh!

 

[bcortens]

To be fair, I don't think that's true. I think people want to say they think Macs should be cheaper but for some reason can't just say that, so they try to create some sort of morality play around naming, or "standards", or deception, or upselling... It makes people feel justified in their whinging if they fabricate some sort of epistemological framework they can graft to their otherwise emotional complaints.

It's simply not a morality play. There's no higher power to appeal to here. It's all written on the tin. If you want a 16GB Mac, it's available. Arguing that fewer angels can dance on a 8GB system is amusing, but has no logical basis.

My complaint is that progress has halted or slowed to be nearly imperceptible when it comes to storage and RAM quantities.

I am also willing to bet that many in this thread would be just as vehement in their defence of the end of this particular type of progress if they had halted at 4GB - 128 GB. After all Apple would happily provided 8-256 and 16-512 at inflated prices.

People can say it is “good enough” all they want but that doesn’t mean I can’t be unhappy that improvements to base model storage and memory halted and Apple seems to now focus on upwelling as much as is possible.

My point is that Apple changed priorities at some point around the Tim Cook takeover and no longer cares about making sure that those who buy a computer every 5 years are getting one that is better in every way. I am lamenting a time when Apple improved storage capacities as prices allowed… that was progress, and it has been lost.

 

[bcortens]

No machine will run contemporary OSes for 10 years. At some point, older hardware isn't supported. I think Apple typically provides OS feature updates for something like 5 years-- someone else may know a more accurate number-- and they support machines by generation, not configuration.

I would never imagine Apple issuing an OS update for machines with 16GB, but not for the 8GB version of the same generation machine.

So I think any machine of the same generation will likely last the same duration. Over spec'ing a machine now hoping, especially without a guarantee, to gain utility 8 years from now may not be the best strategy.

Maybe not an OS update but imagine an AI model like stable diffusion built into photos that is only available to macs with some set amount of memory.

 

[Analog Kid]

My complaint is that progress has halted or slowed to be nearly imperceptible when it comes to storage and RAM quantities.

128GB of RAM in a laptop.

 

[Analog Kid]

Maybe not an OS update but imagine an AI model like stable diffusion built into photos that is only available to macs with some set amount of memory.

It will still run the same spreadsheets and email that it's running today.

 

[bcortens]

128GB of RAM in a laptop.

People keep ignoring me but I am talking about the baseline. The first time the iMac got 8GB of base RAM was 2012… that’s 11 years of nothing …

Actually the whole thread is about the baseline so this is kind of a red herring…

Edit 2: i should also note, in the past progress didn’t mean stacking an ever increasing number of BTO options on at the top, it meant keeping the same number of tiers but the mid range would become entry and high end would become mid to accommodate the new high end.

 

[bcortens]

It will still run the same spreadsheets and email that it's running today.

But, because Apple refuses to move the baseline, it will be unable to run new features.

Again, the Tim Cook era has numbed us to this but it wasn’t always this way and I don’t believe it to be an improvement.

I also suspect that people would defend Apple even if they had continued with 4GB as the base memory.

 

[Analog Kid]

People keep ignoring me but I am talking about the baseline. The first time the iMac got 8GB of base RAM was 2012… that’s 11 years of nothing …

Not ignoring you-- you said that "progress has halted or slowed to be nearly imperceptible when it comes to storage and RAM quantities". That is absolutely not true. Progress is remarkable.

For some reason you have a laser like focus on the specifications of a product you don't intend to buy.

 

[bcortens]

Not ignoring you-- you said that "progress has halted or slowed to be nearly imperceptible when it comes to storage and RAM quantities". That is absolutely not true. Progress is remarkable.

For some reason you have a laser like focus on the specifications of a product you don't intend to buy.

Fine, what I should have said was:
“progress has halted or slowed to be nearly imperceptible when it comes to base storage and RAM quantities” since the thread is about the entry level models for each product line I had assumed that was implied.

I care because I know people who are screwed over by the base models limitations. Who aren’t tech savvy and don’t know to ask people about these things until after the fact.

I also care because I am a fan of Apple and don’t like them making choices that look bad to me…

 

[Analog Kid]

But, because Apple refuses to move the baseline, it will be unable to run new features.

Also not true. It will run plenty of new features. But the user I responded to is running email and spreadsheets for a sales role.

There's no point creating a hypothetical scenario about a feature that could be created that hinges only on the one spec you've chosen to isolate. Virtually nothing in the world works that way. Whatever feature you construe will also be limited by CPU, GPU, neural, display and bandwidth constraints of 10 year old hardware. Assigning all the dependence on one spec is disingenuous.

Buying stuff you think might be useful in the future is just the mirror image of never throwing stuff away because it might be useful again. I've learned over time that both are generally bad bets.

But, you know, if you are aware of a feature due out in 10 years that you absolutely must have, there is a 16GB machine available to be purchased.