I refuse to buy an Apple Silicon Mac with only 8 GB RAM!

[AlixSPQR]

Don't buy an entry level, spec the ram you want and move on?

I have received many, many answers that I should accept things as they are, for different reasons, but often without reasons, and therefore change my mind.
But that is contrary to my OP in the first place, how come you can't see that? Do you all think I wrote something i didn't mean? That I didn't think it through before I posted?
Quite fascinating, actually, as if people can't understand if they themselves do not share the opinion.

 

[leman]

I have received many, many answers that I should accept things as they are, for different reasons, but often without reasons, and therefore change my mind.
But that is contrary to my OP in the first place, how come you can't see that? Do you all think I wrote something i didn't mean? That I didn't think it through before I posted?
Quite fascinating, actually, as if people can't understand if they themselves do not share the opinion.

Tye thing is, you still haven’t answered the most important question: why do you believe that a MacBook should be cheaper than a comparable Windows PC? Because that’s what it boils down to. You want a 16GB Macbook for 1200. But you will be hard pressed to find any laptop with that performance, build quality, display and battery life for 1200. I have provided multiple comparisons with other premium laptops and demonstrated that a 16GB/512GB configuration from other manufacturers is at least 1500-1600. So again: why should Apple sell a laptop for 300 less than the competition?

 

[AlixSPQR]

Tye thing is, you still haven’t answered the most important question: why do you believe that a MacBook should be cheaper than a comparable Windows PC? Because that’s what it boils down to. You want a 16GB Macbook for 1200. But you will be hard pressed to find any laptop with that performance, build quality, display and battery life for 1200. I have provided multiple comparisons with other premium laptops and demonstrated that a 16GB/512GB configuration from other manufacturers is at least 1500-1600. So again: why should Apple sell a laptop for 300 less than the competition?

You want me to answer that question, you feel that I have to, because that is how you understand the topic, but I don't agree. For one thing, I would never buy a laptop.

 

[Digitalguy]

I think with the whole 8gb of RAM comes down to the needed power of most consumers. For a few years 16gb RAM upgrades have been available and most of us will like the fact that we have the extra power when we do have 16gb of RAM, but the fact that consumers are needing the minimum of 8gb of RAM as needed power proves that consumer and demand covers up why Apple still sells it in their Macs. Awesome Macs at that,

"If it didn't attract the consumer then no Apple products will sell."

Things are not that black or white. The issue with Apple is that they don't sell the 16GB the same way they sell the 8GB model. The base model is sold everywhere and over time gets discounted. It's easy to find the M1 air new at $850 (I have seen it even lower) and used at $600. None of this applies to the 16GB which is not sold everywhere and is almost never on sale. So the price difference is not just $200 but gets progressively wider over time. And this affects the used market too, 16GB models are much more rare and much more expensive.
That is why so many people buy the 8GB model. The percentage of those buying the 16GB model is way smaller, and I guess people keep the 16GB much longer since it offers more "room", which contributes to a much smaller number of used devices.

 

[Digitalguy]

Tye thing is, you still haven’t answered the most important question: why do you believe that a MacBook should be cheaper than a comparable Windows PC? Because that’s what it boils down to. You want a 16GB Macbook for 1200. But you will be hard pressed to find any laptop with that performance, build quality, display and battery life for 1200. I have provided multiple comparisons with other premium laptops and demonstrated that a 16GB/512GB configuration from other manufacturers is at least 1500-1600. So again: why should Apple sell a laptop for 300 less than the competition?

M1 air 16GB/512GB is $1400 not $1200. As for finding an equivalent price point with Windows it's pretty subjective, since people have different priorities.
I got my 16GB/512GB Thinkpad X1 nano for $1300 on sale (while the 16GB/512GB air is hardly ever on sale). I am sure some people will think that the M1 air is better, I consider that Thinkpad better. Why? Because, in addition to excellent build quality and keyboard, it weighs as much as the 12in Macbook and has cellular. Battery life and speakers, while not as good as the Mac, are still pretty decent, as is performance. And it's pretty quiet, though not fanless. And I don't have an iPhone (for the ecosystem).
Beating the entry level Macbook air in value at it's discounted price it's a very different story... (but then again if 8GB is not enough, it's not an option)

 

[leman]

You want me to answer that question, you feel that I have to, because that is how you understand the topic, but I don't agree. For one thing, I would never buy a laptop.

Fair enough, you don't care about laptops. Let's look at the Mac mini then. So you say you'd buy it if Apple had 16GB RAM in the $699 model. I'm looking at compact Dell desktop clients. The cheapest 16GB/256GB models (Dell OptiPlex) starts at $839.00. Same question: why would Apple charge less than the competition for more expensive technology?

M1 air 16GB/512GB is $1400 not $1200.

OP says that the 16GB should be included in the price of the base model, if I understand them correctly. Sure, it seems they are talking about the Mini, but I'm just applying the general logic of "Apple charges too much for the 16GB model" here.

As for finding an equivalent price point with Windows it's pretty subjective, since people have different priorities.

Sure, which is why I am looking for an equal spec comparison. Exactly to keep things objective. Apple only serves the portion of the market, it does not cater to every users need. If you want a lot of RAM but don't care about performance, battery life or display quality, you can certainly get something for the half the price. But that is hardly the point. The question is not "how cheap can I can I get a 16GB configuration" but "how much would I pay for a comparable machine elsewhere". That there will always be small differences is clear. But it hardly adds weight to a price argument if one picks a machine that obviously has cheaper, inferior components.

Besides, as I have mentioned before, cheap 16GB laptops use low-quality, slow DDR4. We are talking around 30-40GBps for budget models. Compare that with the 70GBps for M1 or 100GBps for M2.

I got my 16GB/512GB Thinkpad X1 nano for $1300 on sale (while the 16GB/512GB air is hardly ever on sale).

I'm happy you got a good a good deal. The X1 Nano Gen2 is 1,931.40 on the Lenovo website for the 16GB/512GB version (with Lenovo claiming that the actual price is 3,219.00 in the typical scummy fashion), so again, hardly an argument that other manufacturers do it cheaper.

 

[AlixSPQR]

Fair enough, you don't care about laptops. Let's look at the Mac mini then. So you say you'd buy it if Apple had 16GB RAM in the $699 model. I'm looking at compact Dell desktop clients. The cheapest 16GB/256GB models (Dell OptiPlex) starts at $839.00. Same question: why would Apple charge less than the competition for more expensive technology?

You can compare like that all day long, but at the end of the day, it's irrelevant, because they are different products for different market niches.
A shift in consumer demand can actually change things, but I can see the difficulty there, since Apple's customers too often are true believers chanting ”O, mighty Apple, tell me what I should buy, and I'll buy it on your terms.”
But Apple is just another profit making company, they'll come around if the consumers start making demands, they are not impervious to them.
That's why I started this thread. To the chagrin of all true believers.

 

[WeatherWeasel]

I was between a rock and a hard place when I had to order one from the local store, the 4 port M1 2021 24 inch, and 8 G and 256 storage.
If I could have waited, I would have gone with more memory and more storage. I do have a LaCie external for the Time Machine and of course Backblaze and the Icloud for off site. BUT still I miss the array of external drives with my PC.
I am at the juncture that I need to start digging in my doc files and getting rid of stuff that I don't need to make space. I think I could have tolerated the Ram but why did I not wait for a TB of storage. ARGHHHHHHHH

 

[leman]

You can compare like that all day long, but at the end of the day, it's irrelevant, because they are different products for different market niches.
A shift in consumer demand can actually change things, but I can see the difficulty there, since Apple's customers too often are true believers chanting ”O, mighty Apple, tell me what I should buy, and I'll buy it on your terms.”
But Apple is just another profit making company, they'll come around if the consumers start making demands, they are not impervious to them.
That's why I started this thread. To the chagrin of all true believers.

I don’t really understand the argument. If they are different product for different market niches, what would then be a product comparable to the mini? I just showed you the smallest PC Dell sells, with similar system performance to the Max Mini, and demonstrated that this product is not cheaper than Mini for the 16GB config.

It really seems that you ask Apple to sell you a 16 GB under market value just because, and you wrap it in some rhetorics that doesn’t do much to justify your wishes. Consumer demand definitely can change things, but usually it works by choosing the more attractive product. What is the more attractive product in the same market segment as the mini and where can you get something comparable with a 16GB config for $700 or less? I mean, there is the Intel NUC with 16GB for around that price point, but it’s much slower than the M1.

 

[Digitalguy]

Fair enough, you don't care about laptops. Let's look at the Mac mini then. So you say you'd buy it if Apple had 16GB RAM in the $699 model. I'm looking at compact Dell desktop clients. The cheapest 16GB/256GB models (Dell OptiPlex) starts at $839.00. Same question: why would Apple charge less than the competition for more expensive technology?




OP says that the 16GB should be included in the price of the base model, if I understand them correctly. Sure, it seems they are talking about the Mini, but I'm just applying the general logic of "Apple charges too much for the 16GB model" here.



Sure, which is why I am looking for an equal spec comparison. Exactly to keep things objective. Apple only serves the portion of the market, it does not cater to every users need. If you want a lot of RAM but don't care about performance, battery life or display quality, you can certainly get something for the half the price. But that is hardly the point. The question is not "how cheap can I can I get a 16GB configuration" but "how much would I pay for a comparable machine elsewhere". That there will always be small differences is clear. But it hardly adds weight to a price argument if one picks a machine that obviously has cheaper, inferior components.

Besides, as I have mentioned before, cheap 16GB laptops use low-quality, slow DDR4. We are talking around 30-40GBps for budget models. Compare that with the 70GBps for M1 or 100GBps for M2.



I'm happy you got a good a good deal. The X1 Nano Gen2 is 1,931.40 on the Lenovo website for the 16GB/512GB version (with Lenovo claiming that the actual price is 3,219.00 in the typical scummy fashion), so again, hardly an argument that other manufacturers do it cheaper.

You completely ignored the point I was making and tried to make a general point to show your argument was valid.
The point I was making was base vs CTO and you ignored it, because there is not much to argue there.
I definitely didn't talk let alone argue against about Apple not selling cheap devices (but you threw the argument there for good measure).
You seems to be trying hard to make the point that Apple laptops offer more value than any "comparable" Windows device and similarly specced Windows devices are either inferior or more expensive. I told you that that is true for the base model M1, but it's not that clear and objective with CTO devices (as the actual price difference if much larger than it seems based on Apple store prices and at that point it depends on what matters to the users).
As for the Nano, I was talking about the gen 1, the gen 2 offers terrible value for money at any configuration.

I am not trying to attack you or to say that none of your points are valid, because some are, but I appreciate people who argue in a constructive way, not just for the sake of proving they were 100% right on everything regardless of how valid other people's arguments can be.

 

[leman]

You completely ignored the point I was making and tried to make a general point to show your argument was valid.
The point I was making was base vs CTO and you ignored it

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. It was not clear to me that the discussion was about base vs. CTO models since your post doesn't really mention CTO at all, and seemed to be about difficulty of objective comparison.

I am not trying to attack you or to say that none of your points are valid, because some are, but I appreciate people who argue in a constructive way, not just for the sake of proving they were 100% right on everything regardless of how valid other people's arguments can be.

Again, sorry if that's how it seems to you. I am simply comparing currently available official configurations and prices from various manufacturers. I agree that CTO options on Macs tend to be quite expensive, and I don't think that the 24GB/2TB M2 Air is a good value. But the 16GB/512GB — which is IMO a sweet spot for many users with above average demands — has an excellent value proposition compared to other brands.

As for the Nano, I was talking about the gen 1, the gen 2 offers terrible value for money at any configuration.

I am not sure whether it is meaningful to talk about discontinued or otherwise non-available products. Current economic situation — with Covid ongoing, semiconductor shortages, Russian aggression and China/USA tension — is very different from what it was two years ago. We need to evaluate the current market offers in respect to the current market situation.

 

[Digitalguy]

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. It was not clear to me that the discussion was about base vs. CTO models since your post doesn't really mention CTO at all, and seemed to be about difficulty of objective comparison.



Again, sorry if that's how it seems to you. I am simply comparing currently available official configurations and prices from various manufacturers. I agree that CTO options on Macs tend to be quite expensive, and I don't think that the 24GB/2TB M2 Air is a good value. But the 16GB/512GB — which is IMO a sweet spot for many users with above average demands — has an excellent value proposition compared to other brands.




I am not sure whether it is meaningful to talk about discontinued or otherwise non-available products. Current economic situation — with Covid ongoing, semiconductor shortages, Russian aggression and China/USA tension — is very different from what it was two years ago. We need to evaluate the current market offers in respect to the current market situation.

I appreciate the fair reply. Any 16GB RAM M1 or M2 MacBook is CTO (therefore not available in a lot of third party stores and rarely discounted). It was not clear to you that that was the main point I was making, fair enough.
It's also fair to say that things have changed in the Windows world recently so the price I got last year is no longer there. So you have a point there, the value of some Macs, especially M1, has increased in relative terms.
Still the value argument, while strong and pretty objective for a $850 M1 air, is not that strong for a $1400 M1 air, let alone a $1600 M2 air.
That's why only a minority of people buy them and the vast majority gets the base model.
It's generally not the professionals with heavy duty work, who tend to gravitate towards the M1 pro/max, nor the students, who will probably buy the entry model, but more the professionals who need a light laptop on the go, those who prefer a Mac but want to run Windows (8GB is generally not enough without bootcamp), etc.
I am sure there are plently more use cases for these CTO MacBook air, but portability is definitely an important argument.
And in terms of portability some Windows business laptops offer devices of similar screen size but under 1KG and with cellular, something Apple stubbornly refuses to implement for some weird reasons. And I am not even talking about touch and pen input, something that can be important for annotation, signing documents etc (as a university teacher I do appreciate that).
These laptops tend to cost more than the CTO MacBook air, but are more often on sale (the CTO hardly ever is), and therefore you can get them at similar or lower prices than those MacBooks if you monitor the market.
Again I am not talking about $600 16GB/512GB devices, I see them all the time on sale, and they are not necessarily bad, but they are much larger and heavier devices (generally 15.6in) with AMD Ryzen processors which offer pretty good value for that money, but are not the same target market as the MacBook air.

 

[Technerd108]

You want me to answer that question, you feel that I have to, because that is how you understand the topic, but I don't agree. For one thing, I would never buy a laptop.

Then why start a topic thread about something you will never own? Why make an argument that no matter what someone says you will simply disagree no matter the logic?

I guess you are just a troll and got 21 pages of people trying to convince you of something that you don't even care about. Hope you feel good.

The internet seems full of people that just want to cause trouble so they can laugh at people. Really sad actually.

 

[MrGunny94]

I appreciate the fair reply. Any 16GB RAM M1 or M2 MacBook is CTO (therefore not available in a lot of third party stores and rarely discounted). It was not clear to you that that was the main point I was making, fair enough.
It's also fair to say that things have changed in the Windows world recently so the price I got last year is no longer there. So you have a point there, the value of some Macs, especially M1, has increased in relative terms.
Still the value argument, while strong and pretty objective for a $850 M1 air, is not that strong for a $1400 M1 air, let alone a $1600 M2 air.
That's why only a minority of people buy them and the vast majority gets the base model.
It's generally not the professionals with heavy duty work, who tend to gravitate towards the M1 pro/max, nor the students, who will probably buy the entry model, but more the professionals who need a light laptop on the go, those who prefer a Mac but want to run Windows (8GB is generally not enough without bootcamp), etc.
I am sure there are plently more use cases for these CTO MacBook air, but portability is definitely an important argument.
And in terms of portability some Windows business laptops offer devices of similar screen size but under 1KG and with cellular, something Apple stubbornly refuses to implement for some weird reasons. And I am not even talking about touch and pen input, something that can be important for annotation, signing documents etc (as a university teacher I do appreciate that).
These laptops tend to cost more than the CTO MacBook air, but are more often on sale (the CTO hardly ever is), and therefore you can get them at similar or lower prices than those MacBooks if you monitor the market.
Again I am not talking about $600 16GB/512GB devices, I see them all the time on sale, and they are not necessarily bad, but they are much larger and heavier devices (generally 15.6in) with AMD Ryzen processors which offer pretty good value for that money, but are not the same target market as the MacBook air.

Most likely because of battery concerns and having to use a Qualcomm modem in there. I‘m sure once we have Apple modems we’ll start seeing these kind of devices like an Air with LTE option

 

[AlixSPQR]

Then why start a topic thread about something you will never own? Why make an argument that no matter what someone says you will simply disagree no matter the logic?

Apple also makes desktops. That is what I am personally concerned about. Maybe you don't care about them, it seems that way.
Also, I have stated what I feel and think about this, and that is not a question if I am wrong or not. It is a personal preference, my choice. You can have your own and do otherwise, it's up to you.

I guess you are just a troll and got 21 pages of people trying to convince you of something that you don't even care about. Hope you feel good.

The internet seems full of people that just want to cause trouble so they can laugh at people. Really sad actually.

You are free to think that. My OP has been liked or loved by 33 people out of 50. It isn't unreasonable to think that they either share my view or at least have an understanding for it. Many also support this in writing, but many more are angry with me and try to persuade me how wrong I am.

 

[Technerd108]

Apple also makes desktops. That is what I am personally concerned about. Maybe you don't care about them, it seems that way.
Also, I have stated what I feel and think about this, and that is not a question if I am wrong or not. It is a personal preference, my choice. You can have your own and do otherwise, it's up to you.


You are free to think that. My OP has been liked or loved by 33 people out of 50. It isn't unreasonable to think that they either share my view or at least have an understanding for it. Many also support this in writing, but many more are angry with me and try to persuade me how wrong I am.

If you like desktops and this is a thread about the Mac mini or Pro then I guess your argument is a bit more valid. I thought you were referencing the Macbook Air.

But if we are talking desktops and the Mini since I believe the Pro desktops start with 16gb ram then I still think the mini is a decent deal. For the price you get a solid performance even at 8gb and if you need more ram it doesn't cost much more for an upgrade same with ssd. If you look at other desktops with similar geekbench scores they will all cost around the same and most configure with lowest ram possible but with Windows desktops you can just add as much modular ram yourself later as you want.

I can see that a unified system has both advantages and disadvantages specially when it comes to upgrading the device later down the road. But you get a faster system when it is unified. Since it is a unified system and has a shared graphics card then it just makes sense to have more ram.

But you are talking Apple's budget Mac Mini and not Pro s the demographic is similar to an air where a lot of people who buy it just want a basic Mac and never push the performance. I would agree it makes sense to at least include 12gb ram but basic users probably don't need it and it would push the cost up.

Plus you are forgetting that the unified design and faster ram cost more than modular ram to produce.

What sucks about the unified design is if you have a ram failure or ssd failure down the line you have to replace the entire soc. You either get speed with unified design or more potential reliability with modular design. Apple went with speed.

If all of this really bothers you then I would think a windows computer would better suit you and Alderlake desktop chips are already faster than m1 and if you hav3 a good thermal solution and don't care about power draw then Windows would probably be a better choice.

No matter how much feedback or pressure from consumers I don't see Apple changing anything because for enough consumers they keep buying their products and unless it affects the bottom line your choices have already been made.

As for your opinion and what you buy I believe you should have a right to decide what you like best for you. I don't take anything here personally. But complaining about 8gb ram on a Mac mini doesn't seem like a valid argument in my opinion since it cost is pretty competitive and it is a well made piece of kit. Also it is not made for Pros. If you are talking a Mac Pro/Studio then they already will have more base ram and storage at a much higher price. Your initial comment was rather vague and that is why a lot of people like myself made certain assumptions.

I almost forgot iMac. Again this is for people in the air territory but want a monitor included. For the specs and quality of the included monitor and design the cost is very competitive with Windows all in one's. If you know you need more ram then again an upgrade with unified ram is still competitive with Windows all in one's with 16gb ram and the Mac will most likely be faster. If I bought an iMac I would gladly pay the extra money for extra ram but there are some users who will never need it and for them they don't need to pay more for it. I don't see $1200 for the base iMac as being a rip off when you consider what you are getting spec wise for it compared to Windows all in one pcs?

 

[Digitalguy]

Most likely because of battery concerns and having to use a Qualcomm modem in there. I‘m sure once we have Apple modems we’ll start seeing these kind of devices like an Air with LTE option

Let's hope you are right. I would love a 12.5in 2 pound M3 Macbook with cellular by the end of 2023 or in 2024.

 

[ADGrant]

I appreciate the fair reply. Any 16GB RAM M1 or M2 MacBook is CTO (therefore not available in a lot of third party stores and rarely discounted). It was not clear to you that that was the main point I was making, fair enough.
It's also fair to say that things have changed in the Windows world recently so the price I got last year is no longer there. So you have a point there, the value of some Macs, especially M1, has increased in relative terms.
Still the value argument, while strong and pretty objective for a $850 M1 air, is not that strong for a $1400 M1 air, let alone a $1600 M2 air.
That's why only a minority of people buy them and the vast majority gets the base model.

Apple does make M1 laptops with a base configuration of 16gb of RAM which are frequently discounted. The base 14" MBP. The answer is simple, if you want 16gb of RAM, buy a real MacBook Pro, not the 13" MBP which is basically a MBA in the old 13" MBP case.

 

[Digitalguy]

Apple does make M1 laptops with a base configuration of 16gb of RAM which are frequently discounted. The base 14" MBP. The answer is simple, if you want 16gb of RAM, buy a real MacBook Pro, not the 13" MBP which is basically a MBA in the old 13" MBP case.

No, I specifically said M1 and M2, not M1 pro. That is a different device at double the base price as M1 air (and discounted version are accordingly roughly double than discounted version of the base model), and quite a bit heavier than the air too.
And nobody here is even mentioning the 13in MBP (which is not even worth considering IMO) so it seems just you are throwing it in just to make your point about the 14in pro.
Many people want 16GB because they use more than 8GB RAM (and are perfectly fine with M1 CPU/GPU) but do not want the weight of the 14in, if anything they want an even lighter device (e.g. 2 pounds) like you can get with some Windows 13in laptops (and you could get with the 12in Macbook until 2017, a version of which with M1/2/3 and a bezelless 12.5 display would be the dream of many users).

So, no, "if you want 16GB RAM you should get the 14in pro" doesn't work for a lot of people, either because of price or because of weight.

 

[hans1972]

I'm aware that 8 GB RAM as of now fits most people's needs. And that the Si/ARM SoC technology isn't as RAM dependent as x86.

But macs are so expensive that I want them to last for regular use for a very long time. We know nothing of that now.

I have had my 2012 mini since 2013 and it works just fine. But, then, I installed 16 GB RAM immediately, and feel secure with that. 8 GB RAM for the future, not upgradeble, no way.

If the entry level gets 16 GB of RAM, and today's prices continue, I'll buy one. But not otherwise.

What do you think?

I think you shouldn't be concerned with the breadth of Apple's Mac models.

You should only be concerned with the model and specification you need and if it provides enough value for you at the price Apple charges for it. Everything else is noise.


Apple sells Mac with 128Gb of RAM. I don't need that, but I'm not upset about them selling it or what price they charge for it. I don't need it so it's of no concern for me.

 

[hans1972]

We'll see. Combined with the low 8GB RAM and the more swap focused newer macOS, we'll see in 4 to 5 years of these machines. In any case, Apple will see tighter upgrade cycle every 4 to 5 years by keeping these pathetic base spec of 8/256. I'm predicting 8/256 will be the base (for mba and 13 MBP) for the foreseeable future.

Macs have had SSDs for 14 years now, and pretty common for the last 10 years.
There hasn't been any long term problems with SSDs in Macs on a large scale in this period.

 

[mpetrides]

The answer is simple, if you want 16gb of RAM, buy a real MacBook Pro,

The problem is that some people want the more compact size and lighter weight of the MBA but need 16 GB of RAM.

(And some also need a bit more storage while they are at it. But that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.)

 

[ADGrant]

No, I specifically said M1 and M2, not M1 pro. That is a different device at double the base price as M1 air (and discounted version are accordingly roughly double than discounted version of the base model), and quite a bit heavier than the air too.
And nobody here is even mentioning the 13in MBP (which is not even worth considering IMO) so it seems just you are throwing it in just to make your point about the 14in pro.
Many people want 16GB because they use more than 8GB RAM (and are perfectly fine with M1 CPU/GPU) but do not want the weight of the 14in, if anything they want an even lighter device (e.g. 2 pounds) like you can get with some Windows 13in laptops (and you could get with the 12in Macbook until 2017, a version of which with M1/2/3 and a bezelless 12.5 display would be the dream of many users).

So, no, "if you want 16GB RAM you should get the 14in pro" doesn't work for a lot of people, either because of price or because of weight.

You said M1 and M2 MacBook. Nothing very specific about that, the M2 13" MBP certainly qualifies and the M1 Pro is still an M1 SoC with the same CPU and GPU cores as a base M1, just more of them.

The discounted base M1 MBA has half the RAM and half the SSD of the base 14" as well as half the GPUs and 33% fewer performance cores so the price difference seems reasonable. What Windows laptops would offer me is of not interest as I would not consider one for personal use and if someone wants me to use one for work I would expect them to provide it.

I wouldn't buy a Mac with only 8gb either or one with a passive cooling system. That said, an 8gb M1 MBA with a 256 SSD is fine for many mobile use cases. My iPad has similar specs.

 

[Digitalguy]

You said M1 and M2 MacBook. Nothing very specific about that, the M2 13" MBP certainly qualifies and the M1 Pro is still an M1 SoC with the same CPU and GPU cores as a base M1, just more of them.

The discounted base M1 MBA has half the RAM and half the SSD of the base 14" as well as half the GPUs and 33% fewer performance cores so the price difference seems reasonable. What Windows laptops would offer me is of not interest as I would not consider one for personal use and if someone wants me to use one for work I would expect them to provide it.

I wouldn't buy a Mac with only 8gb either or one with a passive cooling system. That said, an 8gb M1 MBA with a 256 SSD is fine for many mobile use cases. My iPad has similar specs.

In my post I kept referring to the air later and to the M1 air in particular since we talking about "value for money" and the M1 air is the one the offers the most when compared to similarly specced Windows laptops (the 13 MBP offers less value, but is part of the same vase vs CTO model)
Personally I would not buy a M1 8GB either (I saw one for 600 on Friday, was tempted but resisted) or any 8GB computer for that matter. I have a M1 mini with 16GB, it has a fan, but frankly M1 one is so efficient I have never heard it and I would be perfectly fine without one.
The point I was making is that Apple uses the base vs CTO model to charge quite a bit more for devices with more RAM. My reply was directed in particular to those saying 16GB is "just" $200 more... it's not, it's often 300-400 more and with hardly any CTO in the used market. So the value argument is weaker.
Does the base 14in offer value for money? Absolutely, but only if you need the added power, otherwise it's even more expensive, and it's heavier (and if you don't care about the added weight, others do).
I have the impression that people have a hard time dissociating CPU/GPU and RAM.
Many people need the RAM (because the either use plenty of apps and tabs and the same time, use Parallels regularly etc. and are constantly using swap memory, sometimes even with 16GB RAM, not because they use video editing, photo editing or whatever else that requires CPU/GPU). As simple as that.
As for Windows, if you don't like Windows, what is even the point of intervening in a discussion where we were considering value of Mac vs Windows laptops (that was the post I was replying to). For those who don't like or even hate Windows, PCs have little to no value, as they are not even an option.
This discussion makes sense only for those who are ok with both OSs, with barely any preference. Personally I tend to prefer Windows, but I like MacOS too, so a comparison makes sense for me.

 

[ADGrant]

In my post I kept referring to the air later and to the M1 air in particular since we talking about "value for money" and the M1 air is the one the offers the most when compared to similarly specced Windows laptops (the 13 MBP offers less value, but is part of the same vase vs CTO model)
Personally I would not buy a M1 8GB either (I saw one for 600 on Friday, was tempted but resisted) or any 8GB computer for that matter. I have a M1 mini with 16GB, it has a fan, but frankly M1 one is so efficient I have never heard it and I would be perfectly fine without one.
The point I was making is that Apple uses the base vs CTO model to charge quite a bit more for devices with more RAM. My reply was directed in particular to those saying 16GB is "just" $200 more... it's not, it's often 300-400 more and with hardly any CTO in the used market. So the value argument is weaker.
Does the base 14in offer value for money? Absolutely, but only if you need the added power, otherwise it's even more expensive, and it's heavier (and if you don't care about the added weight, others do).
I have the impression that people have a hard time dissociating CPU/GPU and RAM.
Many people need the RAM (because the either use plenty of apps and tabs and the same time, use Parallels regularly etc. and are constantly using swap memory, sometimes even with 16GB RAM, not because they use video editing, photo editing or whatever else that requires CPU/GPU). As simple as that.
As for Windows, if you don't like Windows, what is even the point of intervening in a discussion where we were considering value of Mac vs Windows laptops (that was the post I was replying to). For those who don't like or even hate Windows, PCs have little to no value, as they are not even an option.
This discussion makes sense only for those who are ok with both OSs, with barely any preference. Personally I tend to prefer Windows, but I like MacOS too, so a comparison makes sense for me.

If we are talking about value for money in the MacBook line, obviously the base M1 MBA and the base 14" MBP both offer excellent value for money compared with other current Mac Books. Comparing their value with Windows notebooks is challenging since they run different operating systems and use a different CPU architecture. Given the range of hardware vendors that produce Windows laptops, there are bound to be some that appear better value for money than MacBooks based on RAM and SSD capacity. I am not sure why someone with no preference between MacOS and Windows would buy a Mac unless the Mac did offer a significant price performance advantage though but I am also not sure why someone would not have a strong preference. They are very different operating systems.

I do agree that a custom BTO Mac is often much more expensive than a standard configuration because standard configurations sell at a discount but if someone's overriding priority is weight then they should buy the M2 MBA and customize it to their requirements. I don't consider the weight saving enough to sacrifice the performance, screen quality or superior thermals.