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

[Fomalhaut]

I am still waiting for someone to show me why 8GB RAM is not usable for normal uses of the Mac. No, I don't want to look at Activity Monitor or a benchmark. I want an example of some normal thing you can't do with an 8GB Mac.

My sister just bought a base model M2 with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD. I tried it out and it can edit iPhone photos, shop on Amazon, and read emails. Siri can turn her lights on and off, Garage Band seems to work, and so on. I can't seem to find anything that is really slow.

I think Apple got it right.

My Mac Mini has twice the base specs, I use it for engineering work, CAD, and simulation but I've yet to run really complex models on it yet. (pause) OK, I just took few minutes and looks at a CNC mill that I'm designing, there must be 1000+ parts. Fusion 360 runs very well. CPU was at 50% and GPU at 90%, RAM was 11GB but I've also got Chrome browser and a Python development system running. The M2-Pro seems to outperform my old 16-core Xeon-based Linux PC for many things. (The PC with 64GB RAM installed was MUCH better at running a set of virtual machines.)

The base model works for 90% of users and the "doubled spec'd" M2-Pro seems to be a good match for engineering and software development.

Again, what real-world problems are people noticing on their 8GB Macs?

My experience is identical to yours. I recently bought my sister an M2 MacBook Air with 8GB/512GB, and it runs like a champ for what she needs: web-browsing, e-mail, listening to music, viewing / organizing photos, video conferences and web-based work apps (MS Office365 etc.).

Despite watching videos explaining the benefits of a 16GB over a 512GB SSD (if you could only choose one upgrade), I went with the larger SSD because it's actually more useful for her usage.

I did think long and hard about the 8GB vs 16GB because I haven't bought a machine with less than 16GB since 2014 for my own use...but... my usage is completely different to hers, both for work (development & cloud engineering, lots of online conferencing with video capture) and pleasure (audio engineering, video editing, astro-photo processing). My 32GB MBP14 with M1 Max replaced a (somewhat old) Xeon workstation with a half-decent GPU.

There are several assumptions being made a lot here:
(1) That 8GB RAM renders the machine almost useless for anything - it really doesn't for a pretty large percentage of Mac users. Individual users will need to assess their own needs and not assume they know other people's.

(2) That the cost of the (in their opinion "essential") RAM upgrade is extreme. It's a lot more than it costs Apple, I'm sure, but not actually completely out of line with other vendors.

(3) That the whole machine is too expensive for what it is. That's a subjective value statement, so you either agree with it to a degree, or you don't.

Apple is just offering an entry level, albeit an expensive one, for the people who will be fine with 8GB.

Fore everyone else, try to just mentally add the $200 to the price and make that your new "base price". It makes the already expensive machine even more expensive, but it's probably going to make you feel happier about the purchase.

 

[Analog Kid]

The margins on the base model could easily be maintained by simply increasing price by $50-75 while moving to 16 GB RAM + 512 GB Flash.
That maintains base model margins.

The margins on the higher tier models would likewise be maintained with minor $50-$100 price increases.
If the second model up was 16 GB + 1TB and they raised the price by $50-100 the margins would be maintained.

Oh dear... So your solution is to charge 8GB customers $75 for RAM they don't think they need so you can save $125 on your 16GB machine and then charge 24GB customers $500 for their 8GB boost?

Are you going to stick with the story that people aren't just trying to get the 16GB model cheaper?

BUT

Price increases aren't necessary if the following is true:
16 GB of LPDDR5 memory in 2023 costs apple the same as 8 GB did in 2020
(Ditto for flash storage)

If the price of memory has fallen in the last 3 years (it has) then Apple is not maintaining margins on the base models but increasing them (assuming other device costs are equal).


Note: Guessing at the price of the M3 vs M2 or M1 is not relavent here unless you can guarantee that the M3 is more expensive than M2 and M1 were. M3 has more transistors and is on a more expensive process but while wafer costs went up the number of transistors per wafer also went up so per transistor cost is likely to have gone down. It is unclear to me that the M3 will cost Apple more per chip.

You're back to costing the sand...

 

[henkie]

This topic certainly generates some strong opinions

The way I see it:

(1) Macs are marketed as premium machines, and priced as such. Whether they are "worth" the price is highly subjective and depends on all sorts of variables, not just the raw specifications and the cost of similar components on other machines

(2) I think we can agree that the component cost difference between 8GB and 16GB costs Apple a lot less the price for end-users. A large part of the anger here is caused by this apparent price gouging, and while Apple's upgrade prices are high, other manufacturers are not much better (e.g. an upgrade to a Dell Inspiron from 8GB/256GB to 16/512GB is also about $400). Unfortunately, this is just the nature of marketing and price segmentation.

(3) MacOS *does* run quite well in 8GB, together with "a few" applications, but anything more than relatively light use (e.g. a dozen browser tabs, music app, chat/messages, simple documents at a time) will likely cause swap memory usage and *eventual* slowdown. Of course, as applications & web-sites become more RAM hungry, this issue will become more marked, which is another cause of dissatisfaction and concern that the machine could become "weaker" in a couple of years.

(4) Apple could increase the base RAM to 16GB and add a small price increase without losing profit they make on the 8GB machine...but they *would lose* the big profit they make from a chunk of people upgrading to 16GB at $200 a pop.

Ultimately, people will vote with their wallets.

If buyers understand that 8GB isn't much these days, and all of Apple's competitors offer more at a cheaper price, then the "premium allure" of Apple will start to diminish. It will be seen as poor value, despite the other advantages the machine may (or may not) have in buyers' eyes.

If technical buyers understand that a RAM upgrade is essential for their intended usage, they have to add that the price to an already expensive machine, knowing that it is a largely artificial cost imposed by Apple, which causes resentment.

At the end of the day, if the overall opinion is formed that a Mac computer represents poor value for money (taking into account specs, functionality, performance, build quality, reliability, TCO, premium status), their market share will decrease and Apple will either take the loss, or adjust prices either up (to compensate for the loss) or down (to attract more market share).

I liken it to eating at an expensive but highly recommended restaurant. I've eaten in a few places that cost a four-figure sum for two people. At that price, the experience has to be exceptional, and even then it's hard to justify. On a couple of those occasions, I didn't think it was that great for the money. The result? I didn't go back to those restaurants, and looked for better value elsewhere. Other people may (literally) dine out on telling their friends that they ate at that exclusive restaurant that cost a fortune, and the actual food wasn't the important thing to them.

That is the risk that Apple is taking.

2) The base Dell Inspiron 14 starts at 1TB/16Gb for less than 1000 euros (800 even with the regular Inspiron)? Indeed upgrade to 32GB is too expensive (300 euros, still less than Apple though).

 

[andrewstirling]

This is the most absurd complaint in history. They sell it with more memory. So if 8gb isn’t enough for you then get a version with more memory.

 

[MayaUser]

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.

How is this different from former 13” mbp with ‘m1 and m2?
Everything in life is relative, for you a pro should come with 16 for me with 64 for others would want to start with 128 but base price goes up and up and i bet you will cry even more then

 

[AlastorKatriona]

Okay, I can buy that. But show me the data - how many baseline models are sold vs. the others, and what is the resulting revenue from each? Being in stock and available doesn't tell me anything about how many are actually being sold.

Do you really need to see that? Look at everything Apple does. Apple refuses to keep products in production that don't sell exceedingly well. Not just well...exceedingly well. Plenty of products that some people wish Apple would keep producing evaporate because sales are not fantastic. Apple has no patience for skus that don't sell in volume. The proof is there. You can't ignore that and say they keep base model Macs around AND in stock because they don't sell. Just doesn't work chief.

 

[AlastorKatriona]

How is this different from former 13” mbp with ‘m1 and m2?
Everything in life is relative, for you a pro should come with 16 for me with 64 for others would want to start with 128 but base price goes up and up and i bet you will cry even more then

You're peeling back the actual complaint here. None of these people really care that the base model comes with 8 GB. Their real complaint is that it means that they can't be base model users, and thus avoid the hideous tax Apple charges on BTO upgrades.

 

[flybass]

Apple MacBook Pro 14 (2023) review: entry-level enigma

Good riddance to the 13-inch.

www.theverge.com

Another review supporting that 8GB isn’t enough for casual users.

 

[Isamilis]

Apple MacBook Pro 14 (2023) review: entry-level enigma

Good riddance to the 13-inch.

www.theverge.com

Another review supporting that 8GB isn’t enough for casual users.

> But the line between an Air and an entry-level Pro is blurrier than ever.
I can agree on this, but 8GB is certainly enough for casual users (my experience with M2 MBA 8/512). The problem is what kind of "Pro" user or power user will buy the base 8gb version.

 

[Analog Kid]

You're peeling back the actual complaint here. None of these people really care that the base model comes with 8 GB. Their real complaint is that it means that they can't be base model users, and thus avoid the hideous tax Apple charges on BTO upgrades.

No, they aren't base users and don't reap the generous discount that Apple puts on those units.

A development is justified inside a business by its expected profitability: volume and average selling price minus cost of goods sold. The machines are identical except for the RAM and we've established over and over again that the difference in price between the 16GB and 8GB machines is more than the cost of the RAM.

So where does the reduction in price from average come? It's a discount on the Mac part of the Mac.

 

[MilaM]

I agree, base model buyers get the best deal right now. The Mac mini M2 is so heavily discounted currently, even I consider it a steal. Unfortunately things look very different for more reasonable BTO configurations. To buy the M2 Mini with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD you pay an almost 70% permium over the base model. I understand that Apple is charging hefty premiums for the very high speced CPUs like Max and Ultra. Those are likely low volume and only necessary for buyers with very specific needs. But nickel and diming power users, who are most likely among the biggest fans and most loyal Apple customers, just feels wrong.

I'd also add that prices are particularly high for buyers outside the US. Due the strength of the USD and also high sales taxes, Mac hardware has become very expensive.

 

[macduke]

It's really stupid. 16GB should be the floor, and the M3 Pro should start at 24GB and at least go to 48GB, and the M3 Max floor should be 48GB. This is essentially inflation in disguise, as they've largely kept the same 8GB RAM and 512GB SSD starting points for most of the last decade. The only reason they do this is so people like us will pay even more to upgrade it from such a low starting point.

Let's not kid ourselves, this is a 2024 model, and yet parts of the lineup feel straight out of 2016. Let's be real: The M3 MacBook base model is so certain people can cosplay like they have money or need a pro machine. I'm sure it will be fine for looking good in a coffee shop while they check their email and browse the web. They can telegraph to potential mates that they have more money and resources or creative hobbies than they actually do.

 

[reklex]

Would have sold like hotcakes at 512/16, even at a slightly higher price (+50-100 dollar or so).

this is why I don’t understand Apple.

They’d rather see people upgrade these handicapped machines as soon as possible than give the people a good base spec for once.

 

[reklex]

This is the most absurd complaint in history. They sell it with more memory. So if 8gb isn’t enough for you then get a version with more memory.

nah the complaining is deserved.

bully them into raising the base RAM I don’t care what anyone says, SSDs are cheap nowadays compared to 8-10 years ago…

 

[knightsabre7]

It’s called “Pro” because it’s using the MacBook Pro chassis. The names are determined by the case/chassis/form factor, not which components are in them.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Apple MacBook Pro 14 (2023) review: entry-level enigma

Good riddance to the 13-inch.

www.theverge.com

Another review supporting that 8GB isn’t enough for casual users.

It wasn't what I would call a scientific analysis of their memory usage. They just said something along the lines that "opening the 20th tab on the browser" makes it sluggish. Which web-sites? What content? What else were they running?

Tell you what; next time I use my sister's MBA with 8GB, I will open some of my usual web-sites and see how far I get.... even then, that is *my* usage, not hers. She generally only has 1-3 tabs open, whereas I often have 100 plus a ton of other apps that I can't be bothered to close because I'll be using them in the next hour or two.

 

[Fomalhaut]

this is why I don’t understand Apple.

They’d rather see people upgrade these handicapped machines as soon as possible than give the people a good base spec for once.

Well...yes, that is the idea.

People who understand that they will need 16GB will begrudgingly pay $200, and people who bought 8GB quite possibly won't notice the difference if they are light users.

Making the base RAM 16GB and increasing the price by $100 would lose some entry level buyers who were already at the maximum price with 8GB specs, and also lose $100 in upgrade from the people who want 16GB and were willing to pay $200. Apple loses customers or money.

Why would they do that if they can avoid it? It's about maximizing their profit, not being fair to owners.

They will only change their policy they lose market share because of the 8GB decision, or if it becomes untenable to run macOS effectively at the entry level.

 

[Santabean2000]

You're peeling back the actual complaint here. None of these people really care that the base model comes with 8 GB. Their real complaint is that it means that they can't be base model users, and thus avoid the hideous tax Apple charges on BTO upgrades.

Well...yes, that is the idea.

People who understand that they will need 16GB will begrudgingly pay $200, and people who bought 8GB quite possibly won't notice the difference if they are light users.

Making the base RAM 16GB and increasing the price by $100 would lose some entry level buyers who were already at the maximum price with 8GB specs, and also lose $100 in upgrade from the people who want 16GB and were willing to pay $200. Apple loses customers or money.

Why would they do that if they can avoid it? It's about maximizing their profit, not being fair to owners.

They will only change their policy they lose market share because of the 8GB decision, or if it becomes untenable to run macOS effectively at the entry level.

That's the short term thinking that is corrosive to the user experience and erodes a loyal customer base over time.

Apple is big enough that they're not 'doomed' because of it, but it does suck.

I know plenty of folks who suffer in silence simply because they don't know any better. They really don't know how things could/should be in 2023. [Especially at that price point.]

I feel like it's the responsibility of us nerds to fight for them and call out Apple's rampant and unnecessary corporate greed; fight for the little guys. 🔥

 

[Gudi]

I’m laughing at people who bought 16GB Macs five years ago, thinking more RAM would "future-proof" them. Similarly all M3 Macs age at the same speed. No reason to buy any upgrades that aren’t immediately useful to your workflow right now. If you don’t feel the need to return your 8GB MacBook Pro right away, it will last you a computer lifetime. What you really-really want for longevity is an ARM Mac, not an Intel Mac. I rest my case.

 

[Gudi]

Fun fact: the punctuation mark for a rhetorical question is the interrobang (‽).

⁉️ Punctuation like a Pro. 🤓

 

[pdoherty]

8GB RAM is enough for booting up the OS and opening Safari before you start swapping to the SSD 🫤 By Apple standards that may be a Pro workflow, but it's not by anybody else's. A real Pro workflow as they advertise will kill the SSD in 3 years. The SSD is fast enough to where you may not notice the performance problem too much, but you're committing acts of violence on that SSD. 3 years into Apple silicon, and I know of 2 people who have killed their base models. It seems like the 256GB SSDs last for around 300TB of data written before they die - one of them needed just 7 months to reach those numbers. Mine is at 100TB written and does already report "bad sectors" together with having kernel panics, although I've had it for 3 years so at least that's better. And still, below 5 years is the time I'd expect a $500 Windows computer to last before it starts having problems, not a computer at 3 times that price. It's OK to have 8GB of RAM as base but not while you advertise the product as a Pro machine and explicitly mention longevity, telling users they will last "many years" in your keynote. Straight up lie if you use it like that.

This is the stuff that will absolutely kill any resale value of secondhand M-series Macs...

 

[Gudi]

This is the stuff that will absolutely kill any resale value of secondhand M-series Macs...

Let's see what DriveDX says:

Overall Health Rating = 100 %
SSD Lifetime Left Indicator = 99%
Data Units Written = 16.4 TB
Data Integrity Errors = 0

That's a 256 GB SSD with 8 GB RAM constantly using ~800 MB of Swap memory. Problem is the thirdhand market pays not nearly enough for what I know this M1 iMac is capable of. NO DEAL.

 

[flybass]

Review: Apple’s 16-inch M3 Max MacBook Pro crams Ultra-level speed into a laptop

A solid generational upgrade for a laptop that wouldn’t be possible with Intel.

arstechnica.com

Another review that passively makes the same point here about 8GB and “pro” users.

 

[pdoherty]

Sure it is. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to talk about. You want 16GB, you can buy 16GB. The only reason it's being talked about is because people don't want to pay for 16GB, they want it for the price of the 8GB machine. They want the improved specs for free.

These conversations wouldn't go nearly this long if people just started with that: "I wish Macs were cheaper". No replies necessary, just a bunch of thumbs up. The reason these conversations keep going, and going, and going is because while we all agree we'd like more for less, the "facts" and reasoning being given to obscure that desire is generally broken-- like saying "it's not about wanting specs for free". Yes, yes it is. And the reason you're being argued with isn't because other people don't, it's because denying it is simply wrong.

The problem is that, inherent in your argument, is the premise that the prices Apple charges for all of their computers is already reasonable (how else could one be asking for "specs for free"). But they aren't. People are rightly noticing how crazy-expensive these disposable computers already are and that at those prices more specs should have already been included.

 

[Gudi]

People are rightly noticing how crazy-expensive these disposable computers already are and that at those prices more specs should have already been included.

Nonsense! If the SSDs were indeed as disposable as you claim, more base-config RAM wouldn't change anything about the situation. Here's a lengthy thread discussing the whole TBW usage saga. I for one came to the conclusion, it's not an issue:

MacRumors: ssd swap - high usage of Terabytes Written