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

[boss.king]

The 18GB is essentially equivalent to the 16 GB they replace, its just that the new ones have a different memory controller that changes the sizes of the configuration of modules they use.
I actually think the Pro and Max should come with 32 GB the iMac Pro back in 2017 showed a great base configuration for proper prosumer devices at 32 GB + 1 TB.

But your point was that "not one of the default configs come with more than 8GB of memory", which simply isn't true.

I actually think 4GB would probably be fine if, as you contend, the only purpose of the default configurations you can buy on the shelf is to have open a small selection of browser tabs, mail, calendar, messages, and photos. Yeah 2GB would probably be completely unusable though.

So then it's really not about the capacity at all for you, it's just about price per GB?

Let’s consider that Apple last sold 4GB as standard in the 2017 Air. I would consider that any Mac should be expected to last at least 5 years with the same level of user experience. However I would say that in 2022, 5 years after that MacBook Air was introduced, that 4 GB was verging on unusable if you did more than the absolute basics with your Mac. Do we think that in 2028 that 8 GB will seem just as usable as it is today?

I think those 4GB MacBook Airs would feel pretty rough to use today, but not solely because of the RAM. Their underpowered and undercooled CPUs would be the bigger issue. I don't know how they would perform if we could isolate them to just be RAM-limited, but I also don't think it's really helpful to the point we're talking about now.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again, I care about the default configurations more than whatever you can add on top for an additional $1200 dollars because it is the base machines that are available on store shelves, that should still be usable in 5 years.

If you're the kind of buyer who needs more than 8GB of RAM, I think you can work out how to buy a laptop through Apple's configurator if there isn't another model in stores that fits your needs. I don't know who these shoppers are who are doing things that demand 16 or more GB of RAM but are somehow unable to use a web browser.

Look, I get wanting to raise the base level on these machines (I'm not even against it, more specs for the same price or less moneyf for the same specs, all good in my books), I just don't think we're at the point where 8GB isn't a valid config for a computer. Just about every other manufacturer still offers machines with 8GB configs or start at 16GB at the pretty much the same price point as the M3 Pro MBPs (for equivalently premium laptops). I've said it many times now but it really is this simple: if you don't want this config, just don't buy it.

 

[Apple_Robert]

So many here expect Apple to eat the cost of updating the base RAM to 16GB. And even then, many of the same would say 16GB still isn't enough for them. How many here work for free or if you are a business owner, give away product for free just because some customers feel they are owed more product for the same price? And yet, many of you (release after release) expect Apple to do the same while keeping the price down.

Stop worrying about the base model if said model isn't for you. There are plenty of people who would do fine with the base model. And if you don't want to pay the extra cost for the RAM you claim to need, then start buying a PC.

This song has played so much the vinyl has grooves and is skipping.

 

[OrenLindsey]

So many here expect Apple to eat the cost of updating the base RAM to 16GB. And even then, many of the same would say 16GB still isn't enough for them. How many here work for free or if you are a business owner, give away product for free just because some customers feel they are owed more product for the same price? And yet, many of you (release after release) expect Apple to do the same while keeping the price down.

Stop worrying about the base model if said model isn't for you. There are plenty of people who would do fine with the base model. And if you don't want to pay the extra cost for the RAM you claim to need, then start buying a PC.

This song has played so much the vinyl has grooves and is skipping.

This is true, but no one would be complaining if the pricing wasn't so bad. It's not the 8gb starting model that's the problem. It's the $1600 price for that, and the $200 price to get up to 16gb.

 

[bcortens]

So many here expect Apple to eat the cost of updating the base RAM to 16GB. And even then, many of the same would say 16GB still isn't enough for them. How many here work for free or if you are a business owner, give away product for free just because some customers feel they are owed more product for the same price? And yet, many of you (release after release) expect Apple to do the same while keeping the price down.

Stop worrying about the base model if said model isn't for you. There are plenty of people who would do fine with the base model. And if you don't want to pay the extra cost for the RAM you claim to need, then start buying a PC.

This song has played so much the vinyl has grooves and is skipping.

If they upgraded the base RAM more than once every 7+ years you might have a point. But since RAM price per GB falls year on year and given current market trends the average price per GB for a generation of RAM falls every 5 or so years we should be unhappy when they fail to keep pace with the actual pace of technical progress.

 

[Apple_Robert]

This is true, but no one would be complaining if the pricing wasn't so bad. It's not the 8gb starting model that's the problem. It's the $1600 price for that, and the $200 price to get up to 16gb.

I get that. Apple has been consistent in what they do and many of the same people keep complaining while continuing to buy the top specced offering. That is what really makes no sense to me.

None of us is forced to buy anything Apple. If the quality or pricing is not to my liking, I don't buy.

Many here want the most tech bang for their buck and I don't have a problem with that mindset. I am the same. The difference is I don't rant and rave about the base model all the time nor do I complaint about the Apple pricing all the time because I know what to expect.

Buying new cars is the same. If one wants the extra perks, you have to pay. Apple is no different.

 

[Apple_Robert]

If they upgraded the base RAM more than once every 7+ years you might have a point. But since RAM price per GB falls year on year and given current market trends the average price per GB for a generation of RAM falls every 5 or so years we should be unhappy when they fail to keep pace with the actual pace of technical progress.

Apple isn't going to change their pricing strategy unless they are forced to stay in business. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I expect some griping from someone new to Apple and Macs, especially after spending their life in Windows. What is rather odd is to see veteran Apple people griping all the time about the base model when they aren't the target and have other models to pick from.

At this point, I pay the Apple tax because I like the service, quality, and integration of product year after year. I don't jump on the base model bandwagon and demand freebies from Apple because that isn't how business works. Like I said, the car industry is the same model pricing. But, for some reason, many here single out Apple.

 

[surfzen21]

It is related: 8GB of top class premium superfast hyper Magic Sprinkle high quality polished shiny ram is still just 8Gb, no matter how you turn. Thus, with several apps open this superfast Magic sprinkle dust 8GB fills up and your Mac starts to swap to the not so sprinkly SSD, partly defeating the purpose of your superfast turbo hyper ram that is supposedly in your MacBook. Example usage here:

But I guess, some people here are okay with paying 2000 euro for a laptop with 8GB or pay 230 euro extra for a mere 8GB extra (!!!). Better be sprinkle dust ram. But considering the SSD upgrade prices are also exorbitant, while those are definitely not winning any speed contests, I would not count on it too much.

LMAO

Euros. I couldn't give a F what you chaps on the wrong side of the pond pay or what weird currency you use.

Also, the Max Tech brothers are hyperbolic idiots. I'd listen to them for technical tests as much as I'd listen to Mary Poppins for advice on how to circumvent gravity as both are based in fiction.

 

[bcortens]

But your point was that "not one of the default configs come with more than 8GB of memory", which simply isn't true.

I was talking about consumer macs when talking about the 8GB base level. We can have a conversation about the pro ones somewhere else if you want but that is a separate conversation. Should have clarified more.

(I don’t think the base M3 MBP counts as a proper Prosumer model it’s just a name and doesn’t mean much to me, I consider the M3 Pro and M3 Max the true Prosumer models).

So then it's really not about the capacity at all for you, it's just about price per GB?

Absolute base capacity and price per GB are very closely related when it comes to the base model - I would not be happy if 4GB was the base model even if it was priced appropriately, likewise simply increasing the base price by $200 and increasing the ram to 16GB would also not be good because that doesn’t reflect the actual cost of memory.

I think Apple should be about providing a premium experience for the lifetime of the product which means that they shouldn’t sell 4GB or 8GB models no matter the price.

I think those 4GB MacBook Airs would feel pretty rough to use today, but not solely because of the RAM. Their underpowered and undercooled CPUs would be the bigger issue. I don't know how they would perform if we could isolate them to just be RAM-limited, but I also don't think it's really helpful to the point we're talking about now.

I know you acknowledge later that you don’t think that we are at the point where 8GB is no longer usable but I disagree. Apple always waits too long to upgrade base storage. The upgrade from 4GB to 8GB was a 5 year gap and I would argue that was too long as 4GB macs were not useable except for very limited users by 2022.

If you're the kind of buyer who needs more than 8GB of RAM, I think you can work out how to buy a laptop through Apple's configurator if there isn't another model in stores that fits your needs. I don't know who these shoppers are who are doing things that demand 16 or more GB of RAM but are somehow unable to use a web browser.

Yes people can configure them but not everyone knows why they should. As I said much earlier in the thread, non-technical users are least able to understand their own needs. Non-technical does not mean non demanding. Students, amateur musicians (I have cousins who fall into the category of having no idea what Mac they need despite using Logic to make music). Yes they should google, but they might not find or have any inclination to read a long thread on MacRumors just to figure out if they need to spend the exorbitant $200 price to get the extra 16GB of RAM when they are probably already paying the extra $200 to go from 256 To 512 GB of storage.
I want Apple to offer a premium experience, I want Apple to bring that premium experience forward every few years, is doubling RAM every 2-3 years reasonable? No, but is doubling it every 7-11 years reasonable? Also no.

Look, I get wanting to raise the base level on these machines (I'm not even against it, more specs for the same price or less moneyf for the same specs, all good in my books), I just don't think we're at the point where 8GB isn't a valid config for a computer. Just about every other manufacturer still offers machines with 8GB configs or start at 16GB at the pretty much the same price point as the M3 Pro MBPs (for equivalently premium laptops). I've said it many times now but it really is this simple: if you don't want this config, just don't buy it.

I don’t care what everyone else does, everyone else aren’t marketing themselves as the best user experience in computing. I also think that we are at the point where in 5 years 8 GB will be limiting the user experience and ability of users to do more than the basics with their Macs.

 

[boss.king]

I get that. Apple has been consistent in what they do and many of the same people keep complaining while continuing to buy the top specced offering. That is what really makes no sense to me.

None of us is forced to buy anything Apple. If the quality or pricing is not to my liking, I don't buy.

Many here want the most tech bang for their buck and I don't have a problem with that mindset. I am the same. The difference is I don't rant and rave about the base model all the time nor do I complaint about the Apple pricing all the time because I know what to expect.

Buying new cars is the same. If one wants the extra perks, you have to pay. Apple is no different.

Exactly. On the bang for buck thing, a lot of people seem to overlook that a computer is more than just a spec sheet and synthetic benchmark numbers.

For example, my M2 Air is incredible. I specced it up and it was expensive, but I don't know of any other computer that can run as fast and quiet and cool for as long as this laptop even if I quadrupled my budget. I could have got more RAM and storage and a more powerful CPU if I had gone a different route, but the real-world result would be a worse experience. I could have paid less and just got the base model, but I knew what I planned to use it for so the upgrade costs, while steep, were worth it.

 

[bcortens]

Apple isn't going to change their pricing strategy unless they are forced to stay in business. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I expect some griping from someone new to Apple and Macs, especially after spending their life in Windows. What is rather odd is to see veteran Apple people griping all the time about the base model when they aren't the target and have other models to pick from.

At this point, I pay the Apple tax because I like the service, quality, and integration of product year after year. I don't jump on the base model bandwagon and demand freebies from Apple because that isn't how business works. Like I said, the car industry is the same model pricing. But, for some reason, many here single out Apple.

Apple enthusiasts are allowed to complain if we don’t think Apple is making the choices that offer the best user experience, which is supposed to be principle which guides Apples decision making. We can acknowledge that Apple is run by people who are going to do everything they can to squeeze every last dollar out of their Customers while simultaneously wishing they would be better. We can be aware of the reality of the situation but that doesn’t mean we have to like it nor will it stop us complaining.

I recommend a different forum if you expect people not to criticize apple when it is warranted (This thread is a discussion about how warranted that criticism is).

 

[bcortens]

Exactly. On the bang for buck thing, a lot of people seem to overlook that a computer is more than just a spec sheet and synthetic benchmark numbers.

For example, my M2 Air is incredible. I specced it up and it was expensive, but I don't know of any other computer that can run as fast and quiet and cool for as long as this laptop even if I quadrupled my budget. I could have got more RAM and storage and a more powerful CPU if I had gone a different route, but the real-world result would be a worse experience. I could have paid less and just got the base model, but I knew what I planned to use it for so the upgrade costs, while steep, were worth it.

Worth it is both subjective and different to reasonable. Apple’s pricing and stock and customizable configuration options can be “worth it” while simultaneously being unreasonable.

 

[Analog Kid]

My initial example was specifically that they might want to start adding transformer based AI models for photo editing and that they might restrict the most powerful features based on ram. We then got off on a tangent about whether they had ever restricted things in the past based on RAM. I actually just remembered that the minimum specs for macOS itself used to list RAM minimums and many games have minimum combined system + GPU vram requirements that are more than 8GB

You presented the hypothetical of stable diffusion in Photos in a hypothetical future release. Photos is part of MacOS, MacOS is compatible with systems, not configurations.

If you want to say that Apple releases MacOS that is compatible with some of their systems but not others of the same generation, you'll have to link it and an example of a machine generation that has mixed compatibility based on factory installed RAM. The more recent the machine you find, the more relevant your response.

 

[boss.king]

I was talking about consumer macs when talking about the 8GB base level. We can have a conversation about the pro ones somewhere else if you want but that is a separate conversation. Should have clarified more.

(I don’t think the base M3 MBP counts as a proper Prosumer model it’s just a name and doesn’t mean much to me, I consider the M3 Pro and M3 Max the true Prosumer models).

Well if you start by only looking at the machines with 8GB of RAM then yeah, you're only going to find ones with 8GB of RAM. That's like saying they don't sell any computers with batteries in them, but don't include their laptops.

Absolute base capacity and price per GB are very closely related when it comes to the base model - I would not be happy if 4GB was the base model even if it was priced appropriately, likewise simply increasing the base price by $200 and increasing the ram to 16GB would also not be good because that doesn’t reflect the actual cost of memory.

I think Apple should be about providing a premium experience for the lifetime of the product which means that they shouldn’t sell 4GB or 8GB models no matter the price.

What does "premium experience" mean? From my experience, even the base M1 Air feels pretty premium. It's fast, smooth, exceedingly powerful, runs cool, has good build quality, a good display, etc. All of that also applies to the M3 machines. What's the "premium" factor that's missing from this 8GB base machine?

I know you acknowledge later that you don’t think that we are at the point where 8GB is no longer usable but I disagree. Apple always waits too long to upgrade base storage. The upgrade from 4GB to 8GB was a 5 year gap and I would argue that was too long as 4GB macs were not useable except for very limited users by 2022.

I mean, I know people using 8GB machines to run businesses, record music, edit video and photos, do basic graphic design, even develop apps. They might go into swap every now and then, but they swear their machine never feels slow. If that's not usable, I don't know what is. Obviously it cover absolutely all needs, but that's true for basically any config.

Yes people can configure them but not everyone knows why they should. As I said much earlier in the thread, non-technical users are least able to understand their own needs. Non-technical does not mean non demanding. Students, amateur musicians (I have cousins who fall into the category of having no idea what Mac they need despite using Logic to make music). Yes they should google, but they might not find or have any inclination to read a long thread on MacRumors just to figure out if they need to spend the exorbitant $200 price to get the extra 16GB of RAM when they are probably already paying the extra $200 to go from 256 To 512 GB of storage.
I want Apple to offer a premium experience, I want Apple to bring that premium experience forward every few years, is doubling RAM every 2-3 years reasonable? No, but is doubling it every 7-11 years reasonable? Also no.

So, basically, you want it so that people should just be able to walk into a store, grab any laptop off the shelf and expect it to fit whatever needs they have, and also not cost as much? I admire the optimism, but that's honestly just never going to happen. What if the base spec was 16GB but they needed 32? What if it was 32GB but they need 128? If you're going to remove any responsibility from the customer, including something as simple as asking "hey, what computer should I buy to do XYZ?", then Apple's gonna have to stop selling anything less than the most maxed out configs.

I don’t care what everyone else does, everyone else aren’t marketing themselves as the best user experience in computing. I also think that we are at the point where in 5 years 8 GB will be limiting the user experience and ability of users to do more than the basics with their Macs.

You're really losing me now. If you don't care about what others are doing then what frame of reference do you have for what RAM should cost or what a premium experience is or how quickly capacities and prices should change? Being the best means nothing if there's only one participant.

 

[boss.king]

Worth it is both subjective and different to reasonable. Apple’s pricing and stock and customizable configuration options can be “worth it” while simultaneously being unreasonable.

What are you talking about? I never used the word reasonable. Nor did the post I was replying to, or the one that post was replying to.

I'd also argue that "reasonable" and "worth it" are equally subjective.

 

[bcortens]

You presented the hypothetical of stable diffusion in Photos in a hypothetical future release. Photos is part of MacOS, MacOS is compatible with systems, not configurations.

If you want to say that Apple releases MacOS that is compatible with some of their systems but not others of the same generation, you'll have to link it and an example of a machine generation that has mixed compatibility based on factory installed RAM. The more recent the machine you find, the more relevant your response.

While not current at all - Mac OS X Tiger required 256 MB of RAM and a G3, many many G3s did not come with anywhere near that memory requirement.

More recently Apple has limited Mac OS within a generation based on the GPU installed Mojave System requirements

I haven’t gone through and checked but Apple does seem to cut off macs pretty arbitrarily recently. For example Ventura drops support for the the 2016 MBP for no reason I can see.

 

[bcortens]

What are you talking about? I never used the word reasonable. Nor did the post I was replying to, or the one that post was replying to.

I know - I’m actually kind of agreeing with you here, I believe it is possible for even the entry level models to be worth it to the people who buy them (because they are better than going for an equivalently priced Windows machine) but but also that the base models are unreasonably compromised by Apple’s decisions.

 

[bcortens]

What does "premium experience" mean? From my experience, even the base M1 Air feels pretty premium. It's fast, smooth, exceedingly powerful, runs cool, has good build quality, a good display, etc. All of that also applies to the M3 machines. What's the "premium" factor that's missing from this 8GB base machine?

Long term potential to grow into new use cases or handle more demanding requirements over time.

I mean, I know people using 8GB machines to run businesses, record music, edit video and photos, do basic graphic design, even develop apps. They might go into swap every now and then, but they swear their machine never feels slow. If that's not usable, I don't know what is. Obviously it cover absolutely all needs, but that's true for basically any config.

So do I, but not hitting swap would be better.

So, basically, you want it so that people should just be able to walk into a store, grab any laptop off the shelf and expect it to fit whatever needs they have, and also not cost as much? I admire the optimism, but that's honestly just never going to happen. What if the base spec was 16GB but they needed 32? What if it was 32GB but they need 128? If you're going to remove any responsibility from the customer, including something as simple as asking "hey, what computer should I buy to do XYZ?", then Apple's gonna have to stop selling anything less than the most maxed out configs.

I don’t think they should be unreasonably compromised. A student should be able to walk in and walk out with something that wont limit them The minute they try and do anything beyond the basics. Yes you can technically do coding on a mac with 8 GB of RAM but it is somewhat frustrating, 16 GB is freeing in comparison. When I got my 32GB Mac that I have now I was coming from a Mac with 16GB and I wasn’t yet hitting the RAM limits on that 16GB but I wanted to do a little overprovisioning. I am very glad I did because now my projects easily exceed 16GB.

Someone coming from a 5+ year old Mac should walk out with something that will meet their needs as well as or better than the last time. With some models that isn’t always the case because we still haven’t recovered from the massive drop in storage capacities from the Flash transition. (Though this has no bearing on memory).

As I said, my main complaint is less to do with specific user needs and more to do with overall progression and trends. Apple should be increasing base storage and memory over time not letting it grow stagnant and only upgrading it when it no longer meets the needs of basic users. Doing so leaves users on the boundaries of the memory upgrade transitions with machines that are less adaptable than they could have been.

You're really losing me now. If you don't care about what others are doing then what frame of reference do you have for what RAM should cost or what a premium experience is or how quickly capacities and prices should change? Being the best means nothing if there's only one participant.

Okay, fair, I care about what others do only so far as that informs my knowledge about pricing for the components themselves. What I mean is that I don’t believe that everyone else offering 8GB of RAM should guide Apple. Everyone else also offers intel CPUs with terrible on the go performance and battery life, should Apple do that too?

 

[ddhhddhh2]

One day... Hey Mom, it's awesome, I saw a bunch of M3 Macs at the thrift store and they're so cheap. Mom, can I get one? Mom: Honey, those only have 8 gigs.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Long term potential to grow into new use cases or handle more demanding requirements over time.

Let me tell you how I spent over $1700 to get 16GB of RAM in my 2018 13" MBP to grow into use cases only to find out that the <$900 M1 Air blew it away about 2 years later.

 

[boss.king]

Long term potential to grow into new use cases or handle more demanding requirements over time.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but if you want future-proofing, buy a more capable machine. Or take the much smarter route and upgrade when you actually need more power.

So do I, but not hitting swap would be better.

Sure, but then why even have swap if you never use it?

I don’t think they should be unreasonably compromised. A student should be able to walk in and walk out with something that wont limit them The minute they try and do anything beyond the basics. Yes you can technically do coding on a mac with 8 GB of RAM but it is somewhat frustrating, 16 GB is freeing in comparison. When I got my 32GB Mac that I have now I was coming from a Mac with 16GB and I wasn’t yet hitting the RAM limits on that 16GB but I wanted to do a little overprovisioning. I am very glad I did because now my projects easily exceed 16GB.

Someone coming from a 5+ year old Mac should walk out with something that will meet their needs as well as or better than the last time. With some models that isn’t always the case because we still haven’t recovered from the massive drop in storage capacities from the Flash transition. (Though this has no bearing on memory).

As I said, my main complaint is less to do with specific user needs and more to do with overall progression and trends. Apple should be increasing base storage and memory over time not letting it grow stagnant and only upgrading it when it no longer meets the needs of basic users. Doing so leaves users on the boundaries of the memory upgrade transitions with machines that are less adaptable than they could have been.

"unreasonably compromised" is subjective. Also, that student can get a machine exactly like you described, it's just not this one very specific config. They could get the M3 Pro MBP. Or, if they can't afford that, they can get the specced up Air. Or any number of Windows machines. You're acting like this one config is the only thing that stores are going to stock.

Okay, fair, I care about what others do only so far as that informs my knowledge about pricing for the components themselves. What I mean is that I don’t believe that everyone else offering 8GB of RAM should guide Apple. Everyone else also offers intel CPUs with terrible on the go performance and battery life, should Apple do that too?

Obviously Apple shouldn't use Intel chips, but that difference cuts both ways. They're using a highly custom SoC with integrated RAM. That means they're not using off-the-shelf components like everyone else, and so they can't source the same budget components as everyone else. The rest of the machine is also different. Mac displays are often much better than others, their battery life is better, the build quality is better. All of these things factor into the price, and yet you seem to be comparing these machines as though the RAM and storage capacities are the only things setting them apart.

 

[bcortens]

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but if you want future-proofing, buy a more capable machine. Or take the much smarter route and upgrade when you actually need more power.


Sure, but then why even have swap if you never use it?


"unreasonably compromised" is subjective. Also, that student can get a machine exactly like you described, it's just not this one very specific config. They could get the M3 Pro MBP. Or, if they can't afford that, they can get the specced up Air. Or any number of Windows machines. You're acting like this one config is the only thing that stores are going to stock.


Obviously Apple shouldn't use Intel chips, but that difference cuts both ways. They're using a highly custom SoC with integrated RAM. That means they're not using off-the-shelf components like everyone else, and so they can't source the same budget components as everyone else. The rest of the machine is also different. Mac displays are often much better than others, their battery life is better, the build quality is better. All of these things factor into the price, and yet you seem to be comparing these machines as though the RAM and storage capacities are the only things setting them apart.

I think we’re never going to agree on this and we both feel that our position is the reasonable one because as you point out, there aren’t many hard rules on how many years between capacity upgrades is reasonable, as you say, it is subjective.

Anyway despite how much fun I am having going back and forth this thread is taking too much of my headspace so I am going to bow out now - thanks for the engagement 😄

 

[Altis]

I get that. Apple has been consistent in what they do and many of the same people keep complaining while continuing to buy the top specced offering. That is what really makes no sense to me.

None of us is forced to buy anything Apple. If the quality or pricing is not to my liking, I don't buy.

Many here want the most tech bang for their buck and I don't have a problem with that mindset. I am the same. The difference is I don't rant and rave about the base model all the time nor do I complaint about the Apple pricing all the time because I know what to expect.

Buying new cars is the same. If one wants the extra perks, you have to pay. Apple is no different.

Is it more worthwhile to "rant and rave" about people who "rant and rave" about an Apple product release, in an Apple forum, in a thread with a very clear title on what's being discussed? This is kind of the place for people to have these kinds of discussions on product line / hardware choices, especially following a big change.

Anyways, even Dave2D, who has previously discussed at length the 8GB vs 16GB Apple concundrum and generally thinks that 8GB is sufficient for some models like the Air line, agrees that 8GB in the $1600 Pro is a bit of a bad taste move:

Looks like the commenters overwhelmingly agree with him (and I).

We had 16GB of RAM as standard config for 15" MBPs way back in 2014. 8 GB is really the bare mininum at this point, what with increased resolution and framerates, larger assets, etc., let alone for a machine that could well last many years without such a bottleneck. The form factor (including display), CPU, battery life, etc all could serve well likely for 10 years given sufficient RAM. It strikes me as Apple both charging their very high tax to get sufficient RAM, but also counting on people who don't know much other than they need a more powerful machine than the regular models (ie. Air) but will end up having to upgrade again before long.

 

[Zest28]

8GB RAM is less than $20. Apple can easily put an additional 8GB RAM in the 14" MBP to make it 16 GB RAM in total.

8GB RAM additional RAM is not $200 what Apple charges.

 

[Zest28]

Is it more worthwhile to "rant and rave" about people who "rant and rave" about an Apple product release, in an Apple forum, in a thread with a very clear title on what's being discussed? This is kind of the place for people to have these kinds of discussions on product line / hardware choices, especially following a big change.

Anyways, even Dave2D, who has previously discussed at length the 8GB vs 16GB Apple concundrum and generally thinks that 8GB is sufficient for some models like the Air line, agrees that 8GB in the $1600 Pro is a bit of a bad taste move:

Looks like the commenters overwhelmingly agree with him (and I).

We had 16GB of RAM as standard config for 15" MBPs way back in 2014. 8 GB is really the bare mininum at this point, what with increased resolution and framerates, larger assets, etc., let alone for a machine that could well last many years without such a bottleneck. The form factor (including display), CPU, battery life, etc all could serve well likely for 10 years given sufficient RAM. It strikes me as Apple both charging their very high tax to get sufficient RAM, but also counting on people who don't know much other than they need a more powerful machine than the regular models (ie. Air) but will end up having to upgrade again before long.

8GB is not sufficient on a $1100 laptop in 2023. My MacBook Pro from 2010 even had 8GB RAM. RAM is cheap as hell, so there is no justification to have only 8GB RAM in your computer.

Smartphones even have more RAM.

 

[Analog Kid]

More recently Apple has limited Mac OS within a generation based on the GPU installed Mojave System requirements

No. Mojave required support for Metal. None of the factory configured Mac Pro 2010s or 2012s had Metal support, but Apple would support third party cards in those machines. This is not an example of Apple supporting some of a generation of product but not others based on RAM.

It is, however, an excellent example of my point: you're just as likely, if not more likely, to be incompatible due to a non-RAM issue.

Mac OS X Tiger required 256 MB of RAM and a G3, many many G3s did not come with anywhere near that memory requirement.

Ok, so if you bought a base G3 25 years ago, before OS X even existed, you couldn't run Tiger.