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

[Analog Kid]

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 would teach those people to read the box before they buy.

 

[bcortens]

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.

You’re being pedantic and missing the point … fine it will run new features but it won’t run all new features, I’m not even saying ten years, 4 year old Intel macs arent getting all the features of the newest ones.

I would teach those people to read the box before they buy.

Nonsense. People don’t know how much storage their photos take up, or 10 years of documents and attachments and other random junk. Expecting everyone to be tech savvy enough to know this is not realistic. If they come from an iMac with a 1TB spinning platter (base model when they bought it) why would they think that the new base model wouldn’t work? sure you and I know spinning disks suck but the storage capacity went down and I guarantee many regular people don’t know how much of their storage they are using.

When the flash storage drives replaced the spinning disks I hoped that we would follow the same trend as in the past. During Steve jobs tenure the storage in Macs went up as price per GB fell. I hoped that as flash storage prices fall we would get more storage in the base model. That we would slowly try and recover from that drastic fall off in base storage. That hasn’t happened.


Look if people are fine with the end of storage and RAM progress in the base models, thats a fine point. But I don’t have to agree with you.

If you are happy with the idea of 8GB of memory base in 2033 (I don’t think we’ll get this but we had 8GB base in the MBP in 2013 so who knows) that’s fine too, but again I don’t have to agree with you.

If you would rather Apple keep the base exactly as it is forever and just keep stacking more BTO options on the top again, that’s good for you but again I disagree.

 

[bcortens]

Isnt it a remarkable coincidence that since Apple equips their base models with 8-256 that is also the number everyone is knows to be just the right amount for most users. The only explanation is that Apple has perfectly understood what the majority of its users needs - nothing to do with discovering that they could take away third part ram and storage and then get away with maximizing extortionate ram and storage pricing, no, not that, this is just Apple magnanimously giving out just the right amount for the majority of their users.

 

[boss.king]

Isnt it a remarkable coincidence that since Apple equips their base models with 8-256 that is also the number everyone is knows to be just the right amount for most users. The only explanation is that Apple has perfectly understood what the majority of its users needs - nothing to do with discovering that they could take away third part ram and storage and then get away with maximizing extortionate ram and storage pricing, no, not that, this is just Apple magnanimously giving out just the right amount for the majority of their users.

That's certainly an insane argument that you've just made up there. Obviously no one thinks Apple is just giving out RAM or storage. They clearly charge steep prices for the base config and the upgrades, and make healthy profits on absolutely everything they sell. But that has nothing to do with whether 8GB is enough for a base model machine. You keep doing this thing where you claim that the quantity of storage and ram isn't enough, but you only ever seem to back that up with arguments about the price and philosophical points about very particular aspects of technological progress while totally ignoring anything to do with actual performance.

If your issue is with performance, there are higher-specced models available. If your issue is with price, you're probably out of luck.

EDIT: just spotted that you also got the base specs wrong. The base Pro is 8-512.

 

[BullHorn]

The most interesting thing I learned from this thread is that people spend >$1600 to just open spreadsheets and surf the internet on their 'Pro' devices.

 

[JouniS]

128GB of RAM in a laptop.

That was already available in 2018 with a workstation CPU and in 2019 with a consumer CPU. Today it should be possible to buy a 192 GB laptop, at least in principle. I'm not sure if anyone is actually selling them.

Apple is usually a bit behind everyone else in RAM capacity, because they prefer using LPDDR in their laptops.

 

[Technerd108]

The most interesting thing I learned from this thread is that people spend >$1600 to just open spreadsheets and surf the internet on their 'Pro' devices.

You have just described most of Apples consumer base.

 

[boss.king]

The most interesting thing I learned from this thread is that people spend >$1600 to just open spreadsheets and surf the internet on their 'Pro' devices.

Wait until you find out that people buy $1200+ phones just to browse social media and send text messages. Wild, I know.

Sometimes people will buy things they don't really need just because they want it 🤯🤯🤯

 

[gimarbazat]

I will say, most of my laptops have 16 GB or more because I’m super smart and I realize 8 GB isn’t enough. Except my base 8 GB M1 MacBook air also works great and I never notice any performance issues so perhaps I’m just wasting money.

Air is for browsing the internet. Im sure it works great. The post at the top refers to a new ‘Pro’ model that doesn’t seem that pro based on the crippled ram.

 

[Analog Kid]

4 year old Intel macs arent getting all the features of the newest ones.

Because of RAM?

People don’t know how much storage their photos take up, or 10 years of documents and attachments and other random junk. Expecting everyone to be tech savvy enough to know this is not realistic.

I expect people to show agency in their decision making. If they're going to spend hard earned money on a product, they should be engaged in that decision. Honestly, if they're baffled by their photo storage they're going to have a hard time in many more areas of life than which Mac to buy.

 

[Analog Kid]

Apple equips their base models with 8-256 that is also the number everyone is knows to be just the right amount for most users.

Strawman

The only explanation is that Apple has perfectly understood what the majority of its users needs

Where would a two trillion dollar company find the resources to study such an arcane detail?

I'm sure they just wing it...

 

[h.gilbert]

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 mean before buying anything expensive you should do a little research and at least understand what spec to choose.

 

[h.gilbert]

I expect people to show agency in their decision making. If they're going to spend hard earned money on a product, they should be engaged in that decision. Honestly, if they're baffled by their photo storage they're going to have a hard time in many more areas of life than which Mac to buy.

Well put. Idiotic to spend over $1k on a computer where you have the choice to spec the amount of RAM and storage and not go through effort of understanding what those terms mean.

 

[Analog Kid]

That was already available in 2018 with a workstation CPU and in 2019 with a consumer CPU.

In a Mac? The assertion was that Apple isn't making progress on RAM and storage. M2 offered 96GB of high bandwidth unified memory. M3 offers 128GB. Progress.

 

[h.gilbert]

Apple silicon is still garbage for recording music until 3rd party hardware and plugin developers support it natively. Many still do not, 2 years in to the transition. The vast majority of professional musicians and recording studios use neither garageband or logic.

That's for sure not the case in my experience. The majority of studios I've worked with use Mac and they're generally using Pro Tools or Logic. Which plugins are not natively supported? Virtually all the ones I use, for example from FabFilter, Sonnox, Waves etc are all natively supported and have been for some time now.

 

[Hopscotcher]

That's for sure not the case in my experience. The majority of studios I've worked with use Mac and they're generally using Pro Tools or Logic. Which plugins are not natively supported? Virtually all the ones I use, for example from FabFilter, Sonnox, Waves etc are all natively supported and have been for some time now.

And honestly ... it's been 3 years now. If people haven't updated their plugins in 3 years ... they're not worth supporting. Even FL Studio is on Mac now, which is something I never thought I'd see.

 

[HackMacDaddy]

It's ok if the MacBook Air, or basic MacBook (if we see one again) starts with 8GB. But a Pro machine in almost 2024 with 8gigs is an embarrassment no matter how you spin it. They had such an opportunity to release a machine that would be flying of the shelves and praised by everyone. Just like with the M1 Air when it was released. If they had spent 5$ more in production to make the base Pro 16GB, everyone would recommend it. How can they be whining about double digit decreases in sales and then let some beancounter mess up so badly.

 

[anshuvorty]

It's ok if the MacBook Air, or basic MacBook (if we see one again) starts with 8GB. But a Pro machine in almost 2024 with 8gigs is an embarrassment no matter how you spin it. They had such an opportunity to release a machine that would be flying of the shelves and praised by everyone. Just like with the M1 Air when it was released. If they had spent 5$ more in production to make the base Pro 16GB, everyone would recommend it. How can they be whining about double digit decreases in sales and then let some beancounter mess up so badly.

Here is my reasoning as to why they didn't release a base-entry MBP with 16 GB:

• the new process node is sooooo expensive to produce that Apple couldn't justify upgrading the base entry to 16 GB

Maybe in subsequent generations, with a more mature 3nm process node, Apple will find the budget to justify upgrading the base entry to 16 GB.

 

[sunny5]

This is one of Apple Silicon Mac's problem. Apple really need to reduce the upgrade price AND start using RAM at least 16GB for all basic Macs since each LPDDR5 chip itself is so cheap. 2x 32GB DDR5 desktop RAM is only $200.

Seriously, Apple really need to fix and improve this if they wanna sell Macs more. Otherwise, who really wanna buy it especially since Apple lost a lot of revenue from Macs?

 

[anshuvorty]

This is one of Apple Silicon Mac's problem. Apple really need to reduce the upgrade price AND start using RAM at least 16GB for all basic Macs since each LPDDR5 chip itself is so cheap. 2x 32GB DDR5 desktop RAM is only $200.

C'mon man! You can't compare PC desktop RAM to the custom and proprietary on-silicon RAM architecture that Apple is using on their Apple Silicon Macs. The way that Apple implements RAM on its products is both unique and harder to do than what the supply chain does on PCs. Thus, the cost is higher for Apple, and as such, to maintain their profit margins, have to charger more $$$ for their RAM on their products.

If there was competition from the PC industry then yeah, RAM upgrade prices for Apple Macs would come down. But because there isn't any competition, Apple is free to charge whatever they feel is the fair market price for their RAM upgrades.

 

[CrysisDeu]

The best way for people to fight this is to vote your dollars away from Apple.

Simply don't buy an 8GB machine from them.

If you don't want to fork over to the money vampire known as Tim Cook 🧛‍♂️, for RAM upgrades, then vote with your dollars on a PC.

Apple has made it clear that 8GB is base RAM, as ridiculous as we all think it is.

Or better yet, don’t even buy mac.

If you don’t buy 8gb and make upgrades, it means Apple’s tactic is getting them more profit

 

[sunny5]

C'mon man! You can't compare PC desktop RAM to the custom and proprietary on-silicon RAM architecture that Apple is using on their Apple Silicon Macs. The way that Apple implements RAM on its products is both unique and harder to do than what the supply chain does on PCs. Thus, the cost is higher for Apple, and as such, to maintain their profit margins, have to charger more $$$ for their RAM on their products.

If there was competition from the PC industry then yeah, RAM upgrade prices for Apple Macs would come down. But because there isn't any competition, Apple is free to charge whatever they feel is the fair market price for their RAM upgrades.

In reality, it's just a memory chip, nothing more and nothing special.

Dont be fooled, Apple still charged high upgrade fee in Intel Mac era.

What you are saying is making excuses.

 

[anshuvorty]

In reality, it's just a memory chip, nothing more and nothing special.

Dont be fooled, Apple still charged high upgrade fee in Intel Mac era.

What you are saying is making excuses.

So, are you saying that on a PC, you can get the same memory bandwidth that you can get on a Apple Silicon Mac? Are you saying, for example, that on a PC, you can get the same memory bandwidth as you can on a M2 Mac Mini, which Apple states can deliver around 100 GB/s of memory bandwidth?

If so, please prove it.

 

[Technerd108]

Well, an i7-13700H has 102gbps memory bandwidth if it is using ddr5 6400? This is a chip found in gaming laptops and even some thin and light.

So even with socketed ram it is possibly to get the memory bandwidth in a M2 chip.

However ddr5 6400 is a top tier spec ram which is not cheap and leads credence the fact that Apple ram is not a cheap part. It is literally the fastest ddr5 ram you can get.

 

[Shirasaki]

The problem is, Apple is having some pretty significant gains every generation since the launch of Macs with Apple Silicon. If they keep pulling annual %30-%35 gains for 5 or 6 more years, Macs will be so much faster than Intel or Amd machines.

Sorry to break it to you, but there is no way to maintain 30% to 35% performance gain every year without massive architectural breakthrough every year, which is nearly impossible. And I’m talking about single core performance, not multi-core performance.