Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How can Apple sell a Mac with 8GB of RAM in 2023 and call it "Pro"
- Thread starter parseckadet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Price-wise, it’s just a little more expensive than an equivalent 15“ MBA which also sports the same specs. Performance wise, the MBP has a smaller but brighter screen, more ports, but is also thicker and heavier. It’s not cheap, I give you that, but it’s also consistent with the rest of Apple’s lineup.
Would it be better if it came with 256 gb storage at $200 cheaper, thereby allowing you to gey 16 gb ram for “free”?
But if you just do basic tasks and only need one extra external screen max. Why spend 2000 euros on a laptop? You could buy a 800 euro MBA M1 and be satisfied.
And don’t give me the “just spend 200 euro extra” argument. I am sorry, but we all know the ssd and memory upgrades should be dirty cheap. If you would like to get ripped off, by all means. Apple is laughing all the way to the bank.
For all of the reasons above I bought a close to new MBP M1Pro refurbished with 1TB/16GB (3y guaranty) for 200 euro less than a m3 8/512 (with 1 external screen support) would cost me. That can handle Lightroom, chrome and Graphpad Prism at the same time without SSD swapping. So my question actually becomes: why on earth would anyone buy the M3 mbp 8GB? It is a lousy value laptop.
A lot of people spec-chase, trying to get the most powerful systems they can, whether they need it or not. I have to admit, I do that sometimes too.
I guess Max Tech can read minds…
Didn’t realize that the m3 mbp had only one fan so it can get pretty hot and loud (compared to recent Mx Pro MBPs). So Apple spend additional money to reengineer the layout to make it worse. But can’t include an additional 8GB which would cost them almost nothing extra.
Albeit this is exactly what I would do to save money, one can't deny that they used the 3nm process to increase clock speed and single core performance. The M3 is a faster processor no doubt. It's just that the M1 didn't urgently need to be any faster.
It's not about cost, but about profit. RAM and SSD upgrades is where Apple earns a living. As a user you get so much software and services for free with every Mac, someone 's got to pay for all of it.
Profit margin you mean. Then again: why "reinvent" the layout of the M3 MBP then? So as a user, just do not get yourself duped into buying the M3 MBP. And those services for free? Meagre iCloud storage that you need to upgrade as soon as you decide to use it for your photos? Services is the fastest growing profit margin market for Apple.
Why ship millions of notebooks over the next seven years with two unnecessary fans, when the same chip runs without a fan in the MacBook Air and iPad Pro? I'd be more annoyed, if they didn't tailor the logic board to the needs of the processor. They could've just build an M3 MBP with a non-functional right USB-C port. That would've been hilarious!
I rarely use the fans at all, unless it's summer and I'm working at the beach bar or something...
This. Apple absolutely has an incentive to stretch out lifespan of their devices as said devices (whether it’s an iPhone, mb, iPad etc.) are the platform for the monthly subscription service fees Apple will draw over the next 5-7 years. Apple’s software ecosystem is where they make their money. That’s their bread and butter. The device is the entrance fee; the price to play.
No, not really. 3/4 of Apple’s business are hardware sales. But this hardware wouldn’t be worth much, if it didn’t last long and wouldn’t have good resale value.
PS: It's wild that headphones, speakers plus watch are larger than the Mac platform!
AirPods were a big hit. I know a lot of Android guys who even use AirPods Pro on their Android phone because of how insanely good the sound quality is.
When I speak to bread and butter I speak to gross margin or profit generated from sales; in otherwords the amount of money they put in the bank account after their costs. Their software and services segment may capture less but pushes more profit back to the company's bottom line than hardware sales. So yes, their hardware sales eclipse services etc but the amount of profit generated from services eclipses that of hardware expressed as gross margin.
This is why I stated that Apple has a genuine incentive to focus more heavily on the usable longevity of their hardware because the services that we purchase and leverage push more profit back to Apples bottom line. In other words it’s cheaper & more profitable for them to produce and maintain those service/software products.
Your option is only feasible if users are able to find a refurbished M1 MBP at their Apple Store. Some might, most won't, simply due to how limited in stock said device will be.
Assuming shopping for a refurbished laptop is not an option, my conclusion is that the M3 MBP can make sense over an M1 MBA for someone who doesn't necessarily need a more powerful device, but is willing to pay for quality of life improvements such as the better screen, speakers, extra ports and the added battery life (albeit at the expense of added bulk and weight).
Maybe you are right in that it exists solely to push users to either the refurbished MBP or the M3 Pro MBP, but overall, Apple does seem to have segmented their product lineup pretty well by price. Like I mentioned, it's pretty close to a 15" MBA with either the ram or storage upgraded, so it's hard to objectively conclude that one is an outright scam compared to the other. It really comes down to what the individual values, and all I can gather here is that ram matters, there is an outright aversion to pay extra for anything, while everything else that can safely be sacrificed will be (sacrificed), but that's just Macrumours, and not necessarily representative of what the rest of Apple's user base feels.
And gross margin used to be ~40% on average for Apple, even before Services became a huge thing. At $6.99 tv+ is likely not making any money. They are far away from having a huge back catalogue, on which they can rely to reap in profits without losing subscribers. Not even Netflix earns more than 40% of revenue. So it's a fast growing segment, but likely not the most profitable. This must be Accessories with a FineWoven case for $59 and production costs of less than $1.
You are correct. I am wrong here. It is crazy that despite a 2023 Q3 record of over 1 billion paid subscriptions that this was still just 26% of Q3 revenue of 81.8 billion so while 40% of that 26% is nothing to scoff at, hardware is still very much king for Apple as they reported hardware GMs at about 45% of the 63% hardware revenues in Q3 2023. I would have thought their services segment as big as it has grown to would command higher GMs and push more to their bottom line but even with iOS apps for example, Apple is taking just 30%. leaving 70% to the devs, so the round 40% number you threw out could very well be high as well.
Perception vs reality.
The thing about Apple's subscriptions is that most of them don't appear to be profitable. We know Spotify is still haemorrhaging money. Maybe Apple Music has better financials because they don't have to pay anyone 30% (though Spotify also hasn't had to pay Apple or Google a cut in years).You are correct. I am wrong here. It is crazy that despite a 2023 Q3 record of over 1 billion paid subscriptions that this was still just 26% of Q3 revenue of 81.8 billion so while 40% of that 26% is nothing to scoff at, hardware is still very much king for Apple as they reported hardware GMs at about 45% of the 63% hardware revenues in Q3 2023. I would have thought their services segment as big as it has grown to would command higher GMs and push more to their bottom line but even with iOS apps for example, Apple is taking just 30%. leaving 70% to the devs, so the round 40% number you threw out could very well be high as well.
Perception vs reality.
TV+ likely isn't profitable either, though Apple appears to have been very disciplined in their spending. They focus on quality over quantity, and don't have a costly back catalogue (likely trying to nudge users into purchasing iTunes content instead), so in the least, I don't think they are losing as much money as say, Disney+.
Maybe News+, since Apple essentially seems to be taking money for doing very little. iCloud is probably almost pure profit. The cost of producing all those exercise videos for Fitness+ could be pretty low compared to say, a season of slow horses. Not very sure about Arcade.
Then you have Apple One, which muddies the whole thing, because it's possible that there are people subscribing to it but don't really make full use of all 4-6 services, meaning more money for Apple. The services probably exist to add value to Apple hardware (eg: you need an Apple Watch to make use of Fitness+), so Apple may not be too concerned about them making money if they can prove that subscribing to these services help sell more hardware or at least prevents customers from switching.
The bulk of their subscription revenue is likely coming from charging developers 30/15%.
Apple Arcade is almost a charity for game developers. With the advent of the AppStore the standard price for a new iOS app (without much brand recognition) quickly became 99c and later FREE with InApp purchases, minus a 30% cut. Games without millions of addicted players and desirable vanity items and loot boxes lose money. Only a few large publishers have the financial stamina and greedy mindset to survive in this Candy Crush market. The vast majority of small creative indie game developers would simply die without Apple sending out the Arcade money as a consolation prize. It's far more important to keep the iPhone platform interesting for casual gamers than to make much money on the services themselves.
It is mind-bending. In the digital realm every big player has a unique market strategy − not just a different product strategy. Apple sells the experience of using a premium device to individual endusers and professionals. Microsoft sells software licences in bulk to business customers and government agencies. Goggle sells large amounts of web traffic to small and midsized online resellers. Facebook sells targeted add campigns to lobbyists and spin doctors. Twitter sells public mindshare to journalists, investors and impostors.Perception vs reality.
They aren't even properly competing with each other. Superficially it seems as if iOS and Android or iPad and Microsoft Surface are in competition, but not really. Every time a challenger tries to compete with the market leader on their own business model, it ends in absolute failure. Like the dozen of streaming services, who try to build a better Netflix and can't break even. Only when you don't primarily sell tv shows to subscribers, you'll be able to build a stable business model to produce them.
Much has been written about Steve Jobs' return to Apple. How he ended the Mac clones, slimmed down the product lines, named Jony Ive chief designer. The Intel transition and the "Get a Mac" campaign. But even after all of that, the Mac was still an unimportant niche platform next to the giant Windows. Better and profitable again, but also tiny in comparison. Only when the Mac became a mere ecosystem companion to iPhone and iPad, its global market share began to grow substantially.
this is a good one. Despite of what some folks might think about maxTech
8GB vs. 16GB RAM on M3-MB air
jfyi: i have a M1-air with 8GB/256SSD.
it has allways served me well. But my workloads on that one are very minimal.
But overall: ofcourse is 16GB "quasi mandatory" for a _mac_ base model.
Mercedes from the 2020s, not VW beetle from the 1950s.
It´s about that it´s there when one would need it.
It´s like having that super lightweight 2-layer TEX-fabric jacket ready in your backpack on days with uncertain weather conditions. Thats even not exactly Mercedes. That´s Volkswagen in the 2020s.
i had bought a M3-MB, or now the M3-air, IF the basic price was with 16/512.
But with those for my taste unrealistic upmargins ? NO......NO buy. Not for "additional computers".
# those other realworld numbers
8GB vs. 16GB RAM on M3-MB air
jfyi: i have a M1-air with 8GB/256SSD.
it has allways served me well. But my workloads on that one are very minimal.
But overall: ofcourse is 16GB "quasi mandatory" for a _mac_ base model.
Mercedes from the 2020s, not VW beetle from the 1950s.
It´s about that it´s there when one would need it.
It´s like having that super lightweight 2-layer TEX-fabric jacket ready in your backpack on days with uncertain weather conditions. Thats even not exactly Mercedes. That´s Volkswagen in the 2020s.
i had bought a M3-MB, or now the M3-air, IF the basic price was with 16/512.
But with those for my taste unrealistic upmargins ? NO......NO buy. Not for "additional computers".
# those other realworld numbers
yes, agree very good video and breaks down the differences pretty well.this is a good one. Despite of what some folks might think about maxTech
8GB vs. 16GB RAM on M3-MB air
jfyi: i have a M1-air with 8GB/256SSD.
it has allways served me well. But my workloads on that one are very minimal.
But overall: ofcourse is 16GB "quasi mandatory" for a _mac_ base model.
Mercedes from the 2020s, not VW beetle from the 1950s.
It´s about that it´s there when one would need it.
It´s like having that super lightweight 2-layer TEX-fabric jacket ready in your backpack on days with uncertain weather conditions. Thats even not exactly Mercedes. That´s Volkswagen in the 2020s.
i had bought a M3-MB, or now the M3-air, IF the basic price was with 16/512.
But with those for my taste unrealistic upmargins ? NO......NO buy. Not for "additional computers".
# those other realworld numbers
I mean if you're paying MSRP that's your first problem. No way you should pay MSRP for that laptop unless you really want to buy it at release. BestBuy regularly has it on sale at $1,400. Apple sells the 13 inch MacBook Air with the same 8GB/512GB option for $1,300. For $100 more you get a bigger and brighter screen and a HDMI port and SD card reader. Worth it for $100 more. Also the 14 inch MBP is $100 cheaper than the 15 Air. Your other option in this price range for $200 more is the M2 pro MBP refurbished at the Apple Store and you get 16GB/512GB.
I ended up getting the M3 Pro MacBook Pro but I sold my M2 Air because I wanted the better screen, the SD card reader and wanted 16GB of RAM. Ended up getting the M3 pro for like $200 more than just upgrading the M3 base to 16GB.
Except that, like most reviewers, he’s not a logistics expert. His wondering why Apple ships staggered releases of chips that are all manufactured on the same process by the same enterprise is… naive. No foundry on earth could ramp production of Apple’s needs for simultaneous release of all its lines.