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

[ikir]

While Apple missed the opportunity to ship those entry Pro with 12GB, unified memory is awesome and still a 8GB is good for many uses. But I agree “pro” is stretched here. Maybe next years they will have more than 8, less than 16GB.

 

[MegaBlue]

How did Apple get away with selling the $1299 13” Pro with 4GB of RAM while the higher tiers started at 8GB in 2010-2011?

How did Apple get away with selling the horribly slow dual-core $1299 non-Touchbar 13” Pro while the higher tier models had much better specs in 2016?

How did Apple get away with using a much much much slower 8th gen quad-core chip in the $1299 13” Pro while the $1799 model and above had a much better 11th gen quad core?

Since its debut a decade and a half ago, the “entry” level Pro has always been nothing more than MacBook Air performance in a MacBook Pro body. Nothing is different now.

 

[Ethosik]

How did Apple get away with selling the $1299 13” Pro with 4GB of RAM while the higher tiers started at 8GB in 2010-2011?

How did Apple get away with selling the horribly slow dual-core $1299 non-Touchbar 13” Pro while the higher tier models had much better specs in 2016?

How did Apple get away with using a much much much slower 8th gen quad-core chip in the $1299 13” Pro while the $1799 model and above had a much better 11th gen quad core?

Since its debut a decade and a half ago, the “entry” level Pro has always been nothing more than MacBook Air performance in a MacBook Pro body. Nothing is different now.

Yup. And if you are truly a professional, you wouldn’t buy the base model anyway and you would know what you are buying.

I think the core issue people want more for less money. I don’t think anyone would argue that main point. I mean who would say “nah” for a M2 Ultra Mac Pro at $3,000? But that is not where it’s priced. You are not entitled to get a product at the price you want. I was not thrilled GPUs are maxing out now at $1,700. But that is the price. NVIDIA can charge whatever they want.

And these rants and discussions are as old as Apple is pretty much.

 

[flybass]

That argument stopped being reasonable when Apple made their computer non-upgradable.

The base M3 MBP configuration makes no sense, its only purpose is to upsell pricy upgrade options - if you're content with 8 GB (that is totally possible), you probably should be looking at a MBA instead of a MBP to begin with.

In fact, for any model that uses the base M3 chip, the MBA is a better deal - no need for a pricy MBP.

The real issue is that it's a $200 difference now at launch, then the base model will go on sale and it will be $1500, $1400, $1200, while the 16GB RAM model will remain at $1800, so you'll be paying up to an additional $600 or even more for that additional 8GB RAM. That's Apple strategy to get you to buy the M3 pro, which is honestly the one to get, especially as that base model too will go on sale and at some point it will also be at $1600

I agree. The issue is more about price of upgrades than some definition of the word “pro”. Do we disagree that there is something sticky about the starting price of a laptop - meaning if 16GB was the base config that the price would be less than the current upgrade?

Having said that - they should really give up the marketing of “pro” and just call it a MacBook.

 

[OrenLindsey]

Having said that - they should really give up the marketing of “pro” and just call it a MacBook.

They really should have, but I can see why they wouldn't

 

[mlo0its]

I’m disappointed they didn’t include a delicious apple or an enthralling book with it 😑

 

[maratus]

Because the base M3 is to be used in iPad Air and iPad Pro, for which 8GB is a popular and reasonable configuration. It’s tempting to increase shipping volumes by including the same SoC in the base MBP which many customers with low requirements would buy instead of MBA (for whatever reason, perhaps better display?).

I do agree that the base for Pro should be 16GB instead. At least as a differentiator. But I’m also happy that instead of the 13” base we now get 14” base with better screen and battery.

18GB base for M3 Pro and 36GB base for M3 Max are definitely appropriate.

 

[amancalledsun]

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.

I’d agree with your statement on Pro Tools. Not so much Logic. There’s a great database of Apple silicon compatibility available here:
https://www.production-expert.com/apple-silicon-audio-compatibility-guide

 

[platinumaqua]

You know it's not the same RAM that they were using back then, right? I'm sure they're probably making higher margins on these components now than they were back then, but it's not like they haven't upgraded to more performant RAM over that time, even if the base capacity is the same.

I paid $50 for 8GB of DDR3 in 2012. Now 16GB of DDR5 costs $41, and those are both retail prices. Bulk pricing is even lower

 

[fathergll]

at least with those MBPs the hard drive is user replaceable so it's possible to switch to SSD for cheap

Sure but I am talking about the type of person who doesn't know any better that is too dumb to know the difference between SSD and Hard Drive. Those people are not swapping the drives. Also Apple was shipping these terrible hard drives in iMacs which are not easy to replace the drive.

The difference here is any dumb average user is still going to have a really fast computer even with the 8GB unless they start really pushing it which most of them are not.

 

[surfzen21]

I paid $50 for 8GB of DDR3 in 2012. Now 16GB of DDR5 costs $41, and those are both retail prices. Bulk pricing is even lower

A gala apple is less than half the price of a honey crisp. Both apples but not the same quality.
That DDR5 at $41 dollars is probably 4800 vs 8000 on the high end DDR5. It probably has a much higher CAS latency too.

I am not justifying Apples prices but the unified Ram that Apple is using and a 16GB stick or sticks of DDR5 for $41 is definitely NOT the same.

 

[OrenLindsey]

A gala apple is less than half the price of a honey crisp. Both apples but not the same quality.
That DDR5 at $41 dollars is probably 4800 vs 8000 on the high end DDR5. It probably has a much higher CAS latency too.

I am not justifying Apples prices but the unified Ram that Apple is using and a 16GB stick or sticks of DDR5 for $41 is definitely NOT the same.

Not all RAM is created equal.

 

[bcortens]

A gala apple is less than half the price of a honey crisp. Both apples but not the same quality.
That DDR5 at $41 dollars is probably 4800 vs 8000 on the high end DDR5. It probably has a much higher CAS latency too.

I am not justifying Apples prices but the unified Ram that Apple is using and a 16GB stick or sticks of DDR5 for $41 is definitely NOT the same.

First - you can go to NewEgg right now and find memory for about $62-80/16GB stick of 7200MHZ+ from brands like Crucial. They don't even make 8GB sticks at that speed because it isn't worth it to them, and yet that is what Apple sells.

Second - yes Apple is using LPDDR5X but those prices will fall over time too, we aren't trying to say that Apple should charge exactly what retail DDR5 costs, we are using these as examples to show that the price per memory chip falls over time as increased capacity chips are released.

 

[hans1972]

I wouldn't buy a $1600 or $1800 laptop in 2023 with only 8gb ram and no upgrade path irrespective of how efficiently it manages its RAM.

But some enterprises would since they have standardised on "pro" and are leasing them for 3 years before they're replaced.

 

[hans1972]

That argument stopped being reasonable when Apple made their computer non-upgradable.

The base M3 MBP configuration makes no sense, its only purpose is to upsell pricy upgrade options - if you're content with 8 GB (that is totally possible), you probably should be looking at a MBA instead of a MBP to begin with.

So you're really complaining about the price of getting more than 8Gb of RAM.

If Apple upgraded the base model to 16Gb of RAM but doubled the price you would be happy?

 

[hans1972]

1000X THIS.

Either make a MacBook upgradable OR quit making the up-front RAM/SSD prices 10X of what comparable off-the-shelf chips are - then we wouldn't complain near as much.

So you are also complaining about the price for more RAM and not for 8Gb RAM being on the base model.
Why not make that complaint directly?

 

[boss.king]

I paid $50 for 8GB of DDR3 in 2012. Now 16GB of DDR5 costs $41, and those are both retail prices. Bulk pricing is even lower

That’s a cool story, I’m just not sure why you’re telling it to me.

 

[henkie]

A gala apple is less than half the price of a honey crisp. Both apples but not the same quality.
That DDR5 at $41 dollars is probably 4800 vs 8000 on the high end DDR5. It probably has a much higher CAS latency too.

I am not justifying Apples prices but the unified Ram that Apple is using and a 16GB stick or sticks of DDR5 for $41 is definitely NOT the same.

Ah yes the Apple Memory with Magic Sprinkle Dust. Even if this would be the case, their ssds are certainly not top of the class. And that 8GB fills up really quickly, swapping to the ssd and thus partially defeating the purpose of that magic sprinkle dust.

 

[Zest28]

8GB RAM is all you need man. Go read all those posts on MacRumors.

 

[hans1972]

Now try running a VM on both with 6GB of RAM assigned and see which one does better.

I’ll wait.

But if the VM only needs 2Gb of RAM as in my case, the M1 or M2 MBA will kill the Intel Mac in performance.

 

[hans1972]

8 GB has been the norm since around 2007, then 16 GB from about 2013 onwards.

One of the wealthiest companies to be so cheap on RAM and charging extreme markup for upgrades is pathetic, especially knowing that it will almost certainly be the bottleneck that makes the device slow down in just a few years (well unless the extra paging to the soldered SSD from being RAM-starved kills that first, I suppose).

So, you're really complaining about the price.

You wouldn't be happy if Apple increased the RAM of the base model but increased the price by $500, which you would be if you really were only concerned about the RAM in the base model.

 

[hans1972]

The problem is that it is not user upgradeable. So you have to decide on a 2000+ euro purchase beforehand that 8GB (and 512GB SSD) will suffice for now, but also the foreseeable future (i.e. 4+ years or so?). I have upgraded my 2011 mbp with additional ram and SSD after 2-3 years or so. This gave the laptop 3 years of additional life.
Turn it around, if 8GB would suffice ("M3 magic" --> in which some argue 8GB = 64GB of PC ram), why would anyone need 128GB in their MBP?? (M3 magic: 128GB = 1TB of PC ram!). It is because with 8GB you will start swapping very quickly...
And the upgrades are crazy expensive and at least the SSD, are not top of the bill components. To compare: the PS5 contains a 0.825TB SSD that is faster, but a complete PS5 is cheaper than upgrading your MBA from 0.256 to 1TB (+0.75 TB SSD). People must be big Apple apologists to defend this.

So you basically complaining about the price. If the base model included 16Gb of RAM but was $1000 more expensive you would still be unhappy.

 

[hans1972]

The problem isn’t the 8gb of ram. The problem is the price with 8gb of ram.

And yet, people on Macrumors constantly complain about the base model instead of getting to the point:

They think the configuration they want is too expensive.

 

[hans1972]

This, right here, is you carrying water for a corporation that has decided to allow base storage and ram to stagnate (in some macs for more than a decade) so that they can charge exorbitant prices for upgrades having made third party upgrades impossible.

So what's more important to you?

1) The base configuration

or

2) The price for the configuration you need?

I believe you don't really care about the base configuration if the price of your configuration is cheap.

 

[Xenobius]

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.

It is not quantity that counts, but quality. Less is more - this stimulates creativity. Besides, 8GB is not a small amount of memory. It is as much as 68719476736 amazing PRO bits.