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

[Abazigal]

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.

There seems to be some internal consistently around Apple's naming conventions, whether you agree with them or not.

Let's look at the iPhone and iPad as examples. The iPad Pro is basically an iPad with extra bells and whistles (better screen, speakers etc). Same with the iPhone pro and pro max (which have added functionality like better cameras and promotion over the base models).

So by inference, pro refers to additional features, while max / plus denotes a larger form factor.

In this context, a MBP means a MacBook with extra features / functionality. Which is not wrong, if we factor in the added ports and faster processor.

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm kind of curious... How would people react if Apple made their "base" model a chip they called M3 but that was reduced to M1 performance with 16GB of RAM rather than the current M3 with 8GB?

To me, what is remarkable about Apple's lineup is that single threaded performance, what matters to most people at the bottom end of the line, is essentially the same from the iPhone to the Mac Pro. No PC line I'm aware of follows this approach. So how would people respond if Apple gave you the RAM you're asking for but differentiated on actual performance instead?

 

[nathansz]

Nope.

The power of Apple Silicon makes editing in Final Cut smooth and delightful even with 8GB.

What sort of video editing are you doing?

Any at all?

Having too many browser tabs open is going to choke 8GB

 

[redheeler]

I'm kind of curious... How would people react if Apple made their "base" model a chip they called M3 but that was reduced to M1 performance with 16GB of RAM rather than the current M3 with 8GB?

To me, what is remarkable about Apple's lineup is that single threaded performance, what matters to most people at the bottom end of the line, is essentially the same from the iPhone to the Mac Pro. No PC line I'm aware of follows this approach. So how would people respond if Apple gave you the RAM you're asking for but differentiated on actual performance instead?

Everything else equal, I would pick 16 GB + M2 over 8 GB + M3. Even 16 GB + M1. Looking at what tends to bottleneck first for a lot of general use cases, the CPU is toward the bottom of the list. The GPU improvements of the newer M chips are more consequential.

 

[Baseiseough]

I have a M1 Max Mac Studio for "pro" photo editing. I'm also a teacher who needed to replace his late 2013 retina MacBook Pro (16GB RAM / 512 GB HD). I was expecting a lot from the M3 chip. After the scary fast announcement, I decided to buy a base model M2 MacBook Air. My reasoning was if Apple decided to launch M3 with 8GB of ram, it meant Apple was confident enough to let Mac OS support 8GB of Ram for at least another 5 years. It also meant that the M3 MacBook Air would obviously have 8GB ram standard. So I Ordered a base midnight MacBook Air the day after the Scary Fast event (ok, I admit, I love the M2 MacBook Air form factor and the midnight colour). Do I regret it? Absolutely not! This Mac is as smooth and quick as my M1 Max Mac Studio on most tasks. Of course, I wouldn't use it for heavy photo editing (that is what my Mac Studio is for). But for everything else, this MacBook Air is now my go to machine. It's silent, quick and light. Does it swap sometimes? Yes. Does it matter? No! The MacBook Air never slows down and is very responsive. If I didn't have the Mac Studio, I would have Maxed the specs out of this machine without hesitation. It would have cost me more than a 14" pro machine, but the smaller form factor and the light weight are worth more to me than the few seconds I would have saved on some tasks on a "pro" machine. I used the crap out of my late 2013 MacBook Pro. The SSD never, ever, had trouble. There is no bad sector on it. So, I'm quite confident the SSD on my base MacBook Air will not have any trouble even with swap. So, does 8GB of RAM look bad on paper? Yes. In practice? Absolutely not. If you do not edit hours of 4k videos daily or render 3D scenes on Blender for a living, 8GB on Apple silicon is quite impressive. Of course, you have to be realist. 8GB, even with Apple silicon is not enough for intense video editing. But for the rest, it's more than enough. I can't believe the performance of this little M2 base MacBook Air. As for gaming, well, it's a Mac, what do you expect? Can't wait to try Death Stranding on the Mac Studio though.

 

[Santabean2000]

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.

While I agree that 8GB is not enough, I wouldn't have such a problem with it if the upgrade prices weren't so exorbitant.

Also flies in the face of their 'green' initiatives, with more devices heading for scrap sooner than what would otherwise be the case.

Apple is just being greedy; short term over long term thinking. And that sucks.

 

[Isamilis]

8GB "Pro"? No way! It's nonsense, it's ashamed AAPL keep doing this in year of 2023.

 

[Santabean2000]

8GB "Pro"? No way!

I don't think, in 2023, that 8GB is enough in the MBA even. I'd like to see 12GB min in the Air and 18GB min in MBP.

 

[Isamilis]

I don't think, in 2023, that 8GB is enough in the MBA even. I'd like to see 12GB min in the Air and 18GB min in MBP.

IMO, MBA 8GB is still reasonable, as they expect the Air for light tasks only. But, it's very shameful when people buy a base model "Pro" machine and couldn't run VM.

 

[henkie]

When you consider the MASSIVE amount of environmental expenditure to mine materials for, produce, package and ship TONS of replacement parts (some percentage of which never get used and some which never make it to their destination), yeah. Quite clearly, actually.

Ah next time you change tyres on a car just change the whole car. This is just plain stupid.

 

[Analog Kid]

Everything else equal, I would pick 16 GB + M2 over 8 GB + M3. Even 16 GB + M1. Looking at what tends to bottleneck first for a lot of general use cases, the CPU is toward the bottom of the list. The GPU improvements of the newer M chips are more consequential.

Is that generally true? Single thread performance drives web browsing, productivity apps, office apps, pretty much everything.

It seems contradictory that you're saying the M1+16 is best because the GPU improvements in new M chips are more consequential, but focusing on the GPU bit-- do most base-config users tax their GPU in any serious way? The new ray tracing stuff is essentially only for games. And if they're GPU limited, they're probably more interested in Pro or Max, right?

But you think most people buying a minimum configuration, not you personally, would benefit more from M1+16 over M3+8 for the same price?

 

[Fomalhaut]

IMO, MBA 8GB is still reasonable, as they expect the Air for light tasks only. But, it's very shameful when people buy a base model "Pro" machine and couldn't run VM.

How many people run VMs these days? A tiny percentage of Mac owners, I’d bet. It was only about 2% at peak. I’m an IT professional doing system architecture, admin, and some development work, and completely stopped using VMs by 2017. It is easier to use cloud instances for most tasks, or Docker containers. The main use cases I can see are if you have to have things running locally for reasons of licensing, having poor network performance, security (can’t be hosted), lack of availability of your VM’s OS, or cost (of running cloud instances).

If I needed to use a Windows environment frequently, but still worked in macOS, I’ve found it to be less hassle to just buy a second Windows machine, than loading up my Mac with VMs that eat resources, and tend to require a lot of time to manage.

 

[Isamilis]

How many people run VMs these days? A tiny percentage of Mac owners, I’d bet. It was only about 2% at peak. I’m an IT professional doing system architecture, admin, and some development work, and completely stopped using VMs by 2017. It is easier to use cloud instances for most tasks, or Docker containers. The main use cases I can see are if you have to have things running locally for reasons of licensing, having poor network performance, security (can’t be hosted), lack of availability of your VM’s OS, or cost (of running cloud instances).

If I needed to use a Windows environment frequently, but still worked in macOS, I’ve found it to be less hassle to just buy a second Windows machine, than loading up my Mac with VMs that eat resources, and tend to require a lot of time to manage.

That tiny population made the "Pro" users. People who just want to do typical tasks can use MBA instead.

 

[bigtomato]

This is merely a 'hook' from apple. They know nobody in their right mind will buy an 8gb model. Its only done to entice people to the website on to find out later how much you really have to pay. Its a trick apples been using for years.

 

[Sami13496]

I think Apple’s pricing strategy is based on fact that their Mac lineup is so expensive to begin with that customer segment will pay for more RAM. If some can’t afford +$200 on top of like $2000 then they can’t afford to buy Mac in the first place. IMHO.

 

[lambertjohn]

My 8gb M1 Air runs everything I throw at it just fine. Tell me why I need 16gb again? Isn't the Apple operating system optimized to run just fine on 8 gb of ram?

 

[Apple_Robert]

That tiny population made the "Pro" users. People who just want to do typical tasks can use MBA instead.

There is no such thing as a "pro user." People started giving themselves that distinction not Apple.

 

[Apple_Robert]

My 8gb M1 Air runs everything I throw at it just fine. Tell me why I need 16gb again? Isn't the Apple operating system optimized to run just fine on 8 gb of ram?

Bottom line: Many on this forum expect Apple to give them more base RAM for the same price as Apple charges for the base model. These same people have made the constant declaration that 8GB of RAM is not enough for any user. Many of these same people consider themselves "pro users" and expect special treatment in specs and price from Apple because of this self ascribed title. And many of these same people complain release after release about the same thing and yet, they continue to buy the higher spec model, complain about the price, receive the Mac and it is suddenly worth the price for their "pro work."

 

[henkie]

My 8gb M1 Air runs everything I throw at it just fine. Tell me why I need 16gb again? Isn't the Apple operating system optimized to run just fine on 8 gb of ram?

Do you even multitask? Or close tabs every time? Then yes, 8GB is enough. Otherwise:

 

[henkie]

Bottom line: Many on this forum expect Apple to give them more base RAM for the same price as Apple charges for the base model. These same people have made the constant declaration that 8GB of RAM is not enough for any user. Many of these same people consider themselves "pro users" and expect special treatment in specs and price from Apple because of this self ascribed title. And many of these same people complain release after release about the same thing and yet, they continue to buy the higher spec model, complain about the price, receive the Mac and it is suddenly worth the price for their "pro work."

Adding 8Gb costs Apple next to nothing. It is just hampering a screaming fast computer on purpose. Again: the falling Mac sales are telling. I also hear it around me: people on the fence wanting to get a MacBook, are not being them because of the crazy low ssd and ram at base and too high upgrade prizes.
But I just give up. Too many apologists here that drink too much Koolaid and are okay with a beachballing and stalling brand new 2000 euro mbp when having Lightroom and a few tabs open in Chrome.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Adding 8Gb costs Apple next to nothing. It is just hampering a screaming fast computer on purpose. Again: the falling Mac sales are telling. I also hear it around me: people on the fence wanting to get a MacBook, are not being them because of the crazy low ssd and ram at base and too high upgrade prizes.
But I just give up. Too many apologists here that drink too much Koolaid and are okay with a beachballing and stalling brand new 2000 euro mbp when having Lightroom and a few tabs open in Chrome.

Apple is in the business to make as much money as they can for their employees and stockholders. And with that comes a lot of different SKUs that will hopefully appeal to as large a buyer base as possible. Being a wealthy company doesn't equate to Apple giving product away because some tech nerds want the status but don't want to pay the price.

If you don't want the base model, you don't have to buy. There are millions of people who will be will be thrilled to do so because the machine will do all they ever need. If getting the next model up is more than what you want to pay, don't buy.

 

[Corefile]

How many people run VMs these days? A tiny percentage of Mac owners, I’d bet. It was only about 2% at peak. I’m an IT professional doing system architecture, admin, and some development work, and completely stopped using VMs by 2017. It is easier to use cloud instances for most tasks, or Docker containers. The main use cases I can see are if you have to have things running locally for reasons of licensing, having poor network performance, security (can’t be hosted), lack of availability of your VM’s OS, or cost (of running cloud instances).

If I needed to use a Windows environment frequently, but still worked in macOS, I’ve found it to be less hassle to just buy a second Windows machine, than loading up my Mac with VMs that eat resources, and tend to require a lot of time to manage.

You are defending AAPL here by saying the majority don't do that. That's not how computer systems evolved. They've always been general purpose devices which shouldn't be neutered when there's no justification. 8/256 and 16/512 are virtually the same cost-wise when you buy in volume. AAPL neuters base models to supplement their bottom line. They are stealing money from people with these inept decisions.

 

[dgdosen]

How many people run VMs these days? A tiny percentage of Mac owners, I’d bet. It was only about 2% at peak. I’m an IT professional doing system architecture, admin, and some development work, and completely stopped using VMs by 2017. It is easier to use cloud instances for most tasks, or Docker containers. The main use cases I can see are if you have to have things running locally for reasons of licensing, having poor network performance, security (can’t be hosted), lack of availability of your VM’s OS, or cost (of running cloud instances).

If I needed to use a Windows environment frequently, but still worked in macOS, I’ve found it to be less hassle to just buy a second Windows machine, than loading up my Mac with VMs that eat resources, and tend to require a lot of time to manage.

Sure, you run those containers in the cloud, but where do you develop them?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

How can they sell any Mac with 8GB of RAM in 2023?

 

[Mr.Fox]

How Apple could sell a Mac with 8GB of RAM in 2023 and call it "Pro"
Easily. This is marketing