No matter how creatively the apologists attempt to spin this, an 8GB RAM computer IS NOT a PRO machine in 2023.
[PERIOD]
[PERIOD]
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
Just a bunch of people complaining about price discrimination and elasticity at work 😬
Very much at odds with this report
M1 8/512
Three years old
1.15 PB written
36% SSD disk life used
Still going strong
Yes 512 will have more life than 256, but still a big difference.
I’m going to keep it simple. If you need more then 8GB of RAM, choose the next highest.
Same with PC, 8GB will always be the base specification.
Same with PC, 8GB will always be the base specification.
This is the stair stepping that they have been doing to push users towards higher end machines. They have been doing this for years, they got me just recently. When I started looking into getting new MacBook Air 15 inch, I noticed that after I increased the RAM and SSD I was close enough in price to go with the 14 inch pro. That is the goal here, Apple is just trying to upsell people. I think it is part of the reason we don't have a larger iMac, they want to upsell users to the Studio set.
Okay I do not care at all about Apple's weird resolutions so for the sake of argument I'm just gonna refer to both as 1080p and 1440p since those are the options I get in Youtube depending on the different displays. We are men, we are not animals.
The problem isn’t the 8gb of ram. The problem is the price with 8gb of ram.
I don't think anyone really cares about Apple selling devices with 8 GB of RAM, it's the ridiculous price for upgrading that irritates people.
RAM is super duper cheap but Apple charges 3-5 times more than anyone else. No one expects Apple to just give away extra RAM or even equal the competitors, but right now it's just gross.
It's the same thing with the SSD-prices. But at least you could buy an external SSD if you end up needing extra storage. You can't buy extra RAM.
RAM is super duper cheap but Apple charges 3-5 times more than anyone else. No one expects Apple to just give away extra RAM or even equal the competitors, but right now it's just gross.
It's the same thing with the SSD-prices. But at least you could buy an external SSD if you end up needing extra storage. You can't buy extra RAM.
I know!
I also just don't think 8-256 (iMac base) works for regular users. Is 8-256 enough for today for some limited number of users? Probably. But for generic users who aren't sophisticated they need the most storage and memory they can get especially since they are the least able to predict how their storage and memory requirements will change over time.
People keep defending the idea that the base model should never change, but by the logic of "good enough" the base M2 and M3 shouldn't exist because the M1 was good enough for most users and users who need more can upgrade to the Pro and Max series. It's the same logic. Base models don't need more so why give them more? Why do these users ever want Apple to update the iMac or the MacBook Air? Surely the base users don't need more so why upgrade the base models?
I keep bringing this up, but the iMac went to 8GB for the base model in 2012! Is it still going to be fine to have 8 GB in 2033?!? Surely a decade is time enough to increase the base memory?!
The flash storage prices have fallen so dramatically that given what Apple pays per GB we should have 1TB of flash as base but that would hurt Apple's margins on upgrades so of course we can't have that!!
I care, because in 3 years if the memory and storage were upgradeable they could take that 8GB to 16GB, or that 256 GB to 1 TB. Since memory and storage are NOT upgradeable the defaults need to be higher.
Future proofing against software that will come in the future actually matters.
Millions of Mac users will be unable to fully take part in the on-device large transformer AI model revolution as they have too limited memory capacity. Suppose Apple adds some transformer based photo editing features to the Photos app, those features are going to be more limited and less capable on 8GB machines.
This argument literally defeats itself.
"8/256 is not usable for the majority of users"
So Apple produces millions of these devices, knowing full well that people will buy them and return them in the return window after finding out that they are unusable. This will cost Apple millions and millions of dollars, and leave mass inventory of millions of unusable devices, with a portion of those users then going to purchase more expensive devices, and a portion of those users moving to other brands.
Yes, that makes total sense. Apple has warehouses full of 8/256 machines that they have produced, shipped, sold, accepted as returns, and now store because they cannot be used and they try to flog them off in the refurb store, to other buyers who will then buy them, not be able to use them, and then return them once more.
That's obviously a completely absurd strategy.
You seem to be under the impression that sales are equivalent to user experience... of course they sell, they are the defaults and as I have said, users that don't know any better buy them. Then those users complain to family and friends (me) about why they had to either pay so much for upgrading to the tier which should be the default (because I don't recommend anyone buy the base storage tier) or they suffer through and spend a day sitting on my couch carefully going through things deleting items they shouldn't have to.
What is a "regular user"?
These machine are sold for office environments where users access their data (and sometimes their apps too) from a server. They need to be reliable, cheap, easy to maintain, looking pretty (if the office is accessed by the public), not have many visible cables and able to run Mail, Browsers and Office apps.
So what do those users do?
You said that the 8/256 doesn't work. So those users don't return them, they just put their devices in a closet and forget about them since they cannot use them?
They are also sold to university students, parents, and many many others who pick the model they can get off the shelf. All of which are categories who will likely find the 256 GB of storage limiting in short order.
You're being pedantic and taking the word "work" too literally and missing the point. I made the point in my post - they have to waste time picking among the files they want to keep or delete and end up frustrated with their machines stuck at maximum storage used.
Oh, so they do work then, for the vast majority of users. And there are not literally millions of devices being sold, returned, sold, returned. And in fact it's only a smaller portion of users that actually need an upgraded device.
All good, we're in agreement.
And as I said in my first post in this thread - (paraphrased) pick the device with the specs you need.
So why bother updating them to M3? Just settle for an M1 for at least 2-3 more years. If this is all you do, M1 is more than sufficient.
If you need more performance: the base of the updated M3 should be 512GB+16GB. M3+256SSD+8GB is like using a Ferrari to go to work and having 3 kids: plenty of fast, but overkill and non-practical.
I actually agree with you.
My guess would be that it is cheaper for Apple to produce more M3 than it is to keep up the production of older M1 chips.
What I meant is that Apple should have also increased the Ram and SSD to 16GB and 512GB SSD on the base M3. And maybe keep the base M1 as a cheaper option, since I really do not see the point of M1 over M3 if the base is still 8GB/256GB. And you just do some office work etc.
I understood.
As I said, perhaps it is cheaper for Apple to produce M3 processors.
To keep an entire production line just for a category of computers is probably not a viable option.
Depends on luck I guess. One of them died at around the 300TB mark and the other at closer to 400, but both were 256GB. I suppose you can expect twice as much from 512. I also don't think 1.15PB would translate to 36% life used. Not sure there is an SSD that can reach this kind of numbers.
People fundamentally don't grasp that the cost difference between 8GB and 16GB is virtually nil. In fact in many areas getting the lower spec part is more expensive due to scarcity. Apple is intentionally being "Apple" to gouge users when they should be using better parts which don't increase cost.