Is 8GB of RAM Enough for MacBook Pro?

[Heat_Fan89]

8GB satisfies most base-spec customers needs just fine.

It does because most users are using their PC's or Macs for basic stuff such as internet, email, banking and watch YT videos and the occasional letter writing. As a recently retired person, I use my Macs for the basics and I find the M2 Mini is twice as fast as my 2018 Mini with 32GB of RAM and the faster SSD at everything, including boot up which the M2 Mini is at a ridiculous <9 secs to desktop.

Very very few people want to crack open their computer to try to swap out parts. So instead of catering to a customer base of people who want to crack open their devices and upgrade them, which is practically non-existent, they have made significant improvements to performance, power efficiency, and sliming down their computers to make them lighter and more compact, things their customers seem to care a lot more about.

I have worked as a service tech for several large computer mfg's so I know my way around most electronics. I upgraded my 2018 i5 Mini from 8 to 32GB, you know because I fell for, 8GB is not enough. The upgrade was NO picnic and I had to use extreme care not to break anything. The entire upgrade took me around an hour.

 

[Agincourt]

The entire argument of M series Apple computers being faster than those of 2015 is not really in dispute. What is in dispute is where the base specs should be if not artificially bottlenecked by Apple. When I read comments suggesting that this trillion dollar company absolutely cannot endure paying ~$20 extra dollars on RAM chips for a computer that retails for $1300... it just makes me facepalm.

Starting nearly a decade ago we reached the 'Cook's Plateau' where (After about 30 years of RAM specs of doubling every ~5 years) the Apple base specs simply froze in critical places such as RAM and SSD storage. These are comparatively cheap components and yet can easily restrict whether a computer is for the casual user or a professional. As such the limitations we're facing now isn't how high Apple must go to justify their prices, but rather how low they can set the specs to get the highest profit margin.

Seriously why are we still having this argument?

 

[Kal Madda]

The entire argument of M series Apple computers being faster than those of 2015 is not really in dispute. What is in dispute is where the base specs should be if not artificially bottlenecked by Apple. When I read comments suggesting that this trillion dollar company absolutely cannot endure paying ~$20 extra dollars on RAM chips for a computer that retails for $1300... it just makes me facepalm.

Starting nearly a decade ago we reached the 'Cook's Plateau' where (After about 30 years of RAM specs of doubling every ~5 years) the Apple base specs simply froze in critical places such as RAM and SSD storage. These are comparatively cheap components and yet can easily restrict whether a computer is for the casual user or a professional. As such the limitations we're facing now isn't how high Apple must go to justify their prices, but rather how low they can set the specs to get the highest profit margin.

Seriously why are we still having this argument?

If someone made a graph for common Windows PC RAM specs, it would likely follow a similar curve. It isn’t the “Cook’s Plateau”, it’s the “user’s needs have mostly leveled out plateau”. This is why 8GB RAM is still a very common base spec on Windows PCs as well. RAM improvements were more meaningful when RAM capacity was lower, and software was still growing. Software RAM usage has largely leveled out, you don’t really see an app using double the RAM within a year’s time. 8GB is more than enough for most base-spec users. And Macs do justify their asking price by offering very high display quality, unparalleled battery runtimes, high quality sound systems, high performance, and high build quality. Laser focus on one spec makes no sense, many specs are involved in the whole of a computer and what it’s worth, not just RAM. If someone made a 4GB RAM computer with a gold casing, I would expect it would sell for far more than an 8GB Mac. Why? Because many different factors contribute to a computer’s value, not just one.

 

[chucker23n1]

If someone made a graph for common Windows PC RAM specs, it would likely follow a similar curve.

It would slow down in the 2010s, but likely not to… zero.

This is why 8GB RAM is still a very common base spec on Windows PCs as well.

But generally not at $1,599.

And, back in the early 2010s, the base spec was more commonly 4 GiB. https://www.cnet.com/reviews/microsoft-surface-pro-2-review/

Laser focus on one spec makes no sense,

It does when the topic is literally "is 8 GiB RAM enough".

If someone made a 4GB RAM computer with a gold casing, I would expect it would sell for far more than an 8GB Mac. Why? Because many different factors contribute to a computer’s value, not just one.

I see you've replaced your ridiculous aluminum argument with a gold one.

 

[Agincourt]

If someone made a 4GB RAM computer with a gold casing, I would expect it would sell for far more than an 8GB Mac. Why? Because many different factors contribute to a computer’s value, not just one.

If you bought a Ferrari for ~$500k USD and it excelled in all respects except for a shotty paint job, that coming in at $50k premium... you ARE going to look at that single short coming. The typical cost to paint or repaint a car is only in the region of $3k USD and you will notice this shortcoming.

The question here isn't that Apple simply fell short over one element of an otherwise premium computer design, but that they artificially selected one of the cheapest components for the specific purpose of price gouging. Can most people get along with only 8 GB? Sure. However if told Apple could have spent a mere $20 more to put it on par with its competitors and that they artificially reduced the specs... why would you defend such obvious price gouging?

Apple's going to aim for the highest profit margin and nothing we say will change that, but with enough of us speaking out in protest? Why do you think that's wrong?

 

[Kal Madda]

It would slow down in the 2010s, but likely not to… zero.

But generally not at $1,599.

And, back in the early 2010s, the base spec was more commonly 4 GiB. https://www.cnet.com/reviews/microsoft-surface-pro-2-review/

It does when the topic is literally "is 8 GiB RAM enough".

I see you've replaced your ridiculous aluminum argument with a gold one.

Likely to around zero…

You’re not buying the bloody RAM chip for $1,599, you’re buying a complete computer with a very high quality display, high quality sound system, high performance, high battery runtime that’s unrivaled by anything else on the market, high build quality, etc. The hardware perfectly justifies the price point…. And plenty of people who don’t need gobs of RAM do want that high quality display, sound system, and unrivaled battery runtime and are willing to pay for it.

It’s not when determining a computer’s value. Many other specs determine a computer’s value, not just it’s RAM spec.

And the aluminum analogy is A. Not an argument, and B. Demonstrates that just because something has stayed the same on a product for a decade doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. You can choose not to get the point, but just because something has stayed the same about a product for a while doesn’t mean it’s bad, and changes aren’t just made to products on an arbitrary timeline, they’re made when they’ll actually be beneficial to customers. Increasing base RAM spec when most base spec users don’t come close to touching the base spec RAM they already have wouldn’t make any sense.

 

[Kal Madda]

If you bought a Ferrari for ~$500k USD and it excelled in all respects except for a shotty paint job, that coming in at $50k premium... you ARE going to look at that single short coming. The typical cost to paint or repaint a car is only in the region of $3k USD and you will notice this shortcoming.

The question here isn't that Apple simply fell short over one element of an otherwise premium computer design, but that they artificially selected one of the cheapest components for the specific purpose of price gouging. Can most people get along with only 8 GB? Sure. However if told Apple could have spent a mere $20 more to put it on par with its competitors and that they artificially reduced the specs... why would you defend such obvious price gouging?

Apple's going to aim for the highest profit margin and nothing we say will change that, but with enough of us speaking out in protest? Why do you think that's wrong?

You keep touting this $20 number you made up, but in reality we have no hard information on all of the costs involved. It’s your fictional assumed number, but it is not hard evidence, and should not be treated as such…

You also keep arguing that the motivation is greed, but again, have no evidence to back up your claim. Numbers indicate that 8GB models sell very well, and customers are very satisfied. But you assume that Apple’s decision isn’t based on this data, but only on greed. Until you have an internal memo where Apple executives discuss their evil ploy to finance their next lambo purchase on the backs of poor base spec users, this is just all your opinion, with no hard evidence to support it…

And your Ferrari analogy makes zero sense, and isn’t a good analogy. The M3 8GB MacBook Pros look every bit as good as any other MacBook Pro. They also perform very well, have excellent battery life, display quality, sound quality, and more than exceed normal users performance needs, and are probably about the perfect machine for a freelance graphic designer on a budget…

 

[Agincourt]

You keep touting this $20 number you made up, but in reality we have no hard information on all of the costs involved. It’s your fictional assumed number, but it is not hard evidence, and should not be treated as such…

DRAMeXchange - World leading DRAM and NAND Flash market research firm, with more than a decade of most authoritative database

DRAM, NAND Flash, SSD, Module and Memory card, and provides market research on spot and contract prices, daily news, market views and reports, and monthly datasheets of semiconductor industry.集邦科技

www.dramexchange.com

Alright then here's the factual figure. Now that it's fact I assume you will correct your argument from now on.

 

[Kal Madda]

DRAMeXchange - World leading DRAM and NAND Flash market research firm, with more than a decade of most authoritative database

DRAM, NAND Flash, SSD, Module and Memory card, and provides market research on spot and contract prices, daily news, market views and reports, and monthly datasheets of semiconductor industry.集邦科技

www.dramexchange.com

Alright then here's the factual figure. Now that it's fact I assume you will correct your argument from now on.

This is still not necessarily what Apple in particular pays for their RAM. It’s just a figure on what some other companies pay for RAM chips. It is not data on Apple’s RAM cost, and doesn’t include installation cost for installing it into the system, or any of that. And it seems that Apple is getting custom modules, because non of the modules you see being sold in normal venues are the same form factor, Apple’s are a bit different in footprint and shape.

You still don’t have hard data, just assumptions and opinions…

 

[Heat_Fan89]

The other thing many fail to realize who talk about future proofing is this. They want more RAM to extend the life of their Mac. However unless that person decides to install an unsupported version of macOS, when Apple decides to cutoff a series of Macs, it doesn't matter whether that Mac has 8GB or 128GB of RAM. They typically get dropped together as a year and model regardless of how much RAM is inside the box.

Base models FTW!

 

[Kal Madda]

The other thing many fail to realize who talk about future proofing is this. They want more RAM to extend the life of their Mac. However unless that person decides to install an unsupported version of macOS, when Apple decides to cutoff a series of Macs, it doesn't matter whether that Mac has 8GB or 128GB of RAM. They typically get dropped together as a year and model regardless of how much RAM is inside the box.

Base models FTW!

Exactly. And Apple also generally does a great job of making sure that macOS and its apps run smoothly on Macs all the way till the end of those approximate 7-8 years of support. And most people don’t try to run unsupported versions of macOS on older Macs. And just like those who are interested in cracking open their computer and tinkering with fragile parts insider their computer, that’s a fleeting minority, and who knows if that will even work when Intel Macs are no longer supported.

 

[Agincourt]

The other thing many fail to realize who talk about future proofing is this. They want more RAM to extend the life of their Mac. However unless that person decides to install an unsupported version of macOS, when Apple decides to cutoff a series of Macs, it doesn't matter whether that Mac has 8GB or 128GB of RAM. They typically get dropped together as a year and model regardless of how much RAM is inside the box.

Base models FTW!

This again is a knock against Apple for artificially bottlenecking its products and making them virtually impossible to upgrade for users. This is where the line gets fuzzy between what Apple has the right to do or whether a computer YOU buy is yours to do with as you wish.

I think that a regulation needs to be established where it's illegal to make software the make-or-break point. Allegedly Apple hard coded this into their computers to avoid theft or hijacking, but it easily allows them to establish another artificial bottleneck to kill the computer's secondhand value on the market. Again I'm at a loss as to why people would defend a trillion dollar company over its customers. One has to appreciate Apple's brutal marketing tactics, but these non upgradable computers are a huge step down from the last generation Intel machines.

My only conclusion can be that such people have a direct stake in the company and want them to make as much money as possible. I'm one of them, but the ~$5000 I have invested in the company isn't enough for me to lie on their behalf and say no one has the right to complain about their practices.

 

[Kal Madda]

This again is a knock against Apple for artificially bottlenecking its products and making them virtually impossible to upgrade for users. This is where the line gets fuzzy between what Apple has the right to do or whether a computer YOU buy is yours to do with as you wish.

I think that a regulation needs to be established where it's illegal to make software the make-or-break point. Allegedly Apple hard coded this into their computers to avoid theft or hijacking, but it easily allows them to establish another artificial bottleneck to kill the computer's secondhand value on the market. Again I'm at a loss as to why people would defend a trillion dollar company over its customers. One has to appreciate Apple's brutal marketing tactics, but these non upgradable computers are a huge step down from the last generation Intel machines.

My only conclusion can be that such people have a direct stake in the company and want them to make as much money as possible. I'm one of them, but the ~$5000 I have invested in the company isn't enough for me to lie on their behalf and say no one has the right to complain about their practices.

Windows doesn’t support all computers indefinitely with new OS updates either… 🤦🏼‍♂️. Nobody does. Why? Because hardware gets old. 8 years is a long time. Most people don’t want to use their computers beyond 5 years, let alone 8…

And government has no business forcing computer companies to support hardware with new OS updates indefinitely… Heck, Samsung only supports their flagship phones with like 3 years worth of new updates… This “throw government regulation at anything I don’t like” kind of thinking is a Socialist idea.

And not agreeing with you isn’t the same as “defending Apple over the consumer”. Oh, and no, I don’t own Apple stock…

 

[chucker23n1]

This is still not necessarily what Apple in particular pays for their RAM.

That's right. Apple almost certainly pays less, at the volumes they take.

It is not data on Apple’s RAM cost, and doesn’t include installation cost for installing it into the system, or any of that.

Installation cost is irrelevant, because installing one chip or another chip doesn't change that cost.

And it seems that Apple is getting custom modules, because non of the modules you see being sold in normal venues are the same form factor,

There basically is no standard LPDDR5 form factor; it's just a chip. In the case of the M2 Air, a bunch of H58G56AK6HX052 chips. You can't get that exact chip from SG Hynix, but you can get the similar H58G56AK6JX032, for instance.

Your implication here seems to be that something about Apple's RAM is so special that it costs a lot more. To what end, though? It wouldn't be faster; the speed is determined by LPDDR5. It's possible they requested a specific form factor. Maybe even a custom pinout. But surely not at the expensive of being, well, more expensive. That would be silly.

 

[Kal Madda]

That's right. Apple almost certainly pays less, at the volumes they take.

Installation cost is irrelevant, because installing one chip or another chip doesn't change that cost.

There basically is no standard LPDDR5 form factor; it's just a chip. In the case of the M2 Air, a bunch of H58G56AK6HX052 chips. You can't get that exact chip from SG Hynix, but you can get the similar H58G56AK6JX032, for instance.

Your implication here seems to be that something about Apple's RAM is so special that it costs a lot more. To what end, though? It wouldn't be faster; the speed is determined by LPDDR5. It's possible they requested a specific form factor. Maybe even a custom pinout. But surely not at the expensive of being, well, more expensive. That would be silly.

Assumption. See potential custom chips. Custom chips could cost more.

Installation cost is relevant, and you make the assumption that it doesn’t change production costs. But that isn’t necessarily true. If they have to stop the line and retool with different chips, that costs time, and time is money. There could be other variations in the assembly process we’re unaware of. We simply don’t know…

And it doesn’t matter if it costs a lot more or not. Apple’s competitors are in several cases charging more for RAM upgrades than they are, so Apple’s upgrade pricing is fine.

 

[chucker23n1]

Assumption. See potential custom chips. Custom chips could cost more.

You're the one assuming things. The onus is on you to prove there’s something special about the chips, and that it makes them massively pricier.

Installation cost is relevant, and you make the assumption that it doesn’t change production costs. But that isn’t necessarily true. If they have to stop the line and retool with different chips, that costs time, and time is money. There could be other variations in the assembly process we’re unaware of. We simply don’t know…

The… line? Of what? The assembly line that puts a chip on the M2 package doesn't care that much if it's 8 GiB, 16 GiB, or a hamster. It drives the costs up, what, three cents?

And it doesn’t matter if it costs a lot more or not.

Then why did you bring it up at all?

Apple’s competitors are in several cases charging more for RAM upgrades than they are, so Apple’s upgrade pricing is fine.

You’re shifting the goalposts.

 

[Kal Madda]

You're the one assuming things. The onus is on you to prove there’s something special about the chips, and that it makes them massively pricier.

The… line? Of what? The assembly line that puts a chip on the M2 package doesn't care that much if it's 8 GiB, 16 GiB, or a hamster. It drives the costs up, what, three cents?

Then why did you bring it up at all?


You’re shifting the goalposts.

I’m making no assumptions. I’m saying we don’t know how much the RAM costs to produce and install. It could be cheap, or it could be expensive. We don’t know.

The assembly line. We don’t know what the production process looks like or what hurdles could potentially make it more expensive. Again, I’m open to the possibility that it could be cheap or expensive, we don’t know. So I’m not going to make assumptions about things I don’t know.

I didn’t bring it up, people kept claiming it only costs $20, and I said we don’t know how much it costs. I didn’t bring it up.

And I’m not shifting goalposts. It’s perfectly relevant to point out that Apple is charging less for RAM upgrades than several of their competitors.

 

[hurt97]

@Kal Madda is probably working at Berkshire Hathaway. Their biggest holding is AAPL. Say hi to Warren Buffet if he's still coming to the office.

 

[Kal Madda]

@Kal Madda is probably working at Berkshire Hathaway. Their biggest holding is AAPL. Say hi to Warren Buffet if he's still coming to the office.

No, that’s ridiculous. I have no financial investment into Apple or AAPL other than I own some Apple products just like basically everyone else on this forum…

 

[chucker23n1]

I’m making no assumptions. I’m saying we don’t know how much the RAM costs to produce and install.

Yeah, but we do, except for the very unlikely, implausible, not explained by you scenario where Apple's LPDDR5 has some special sauce that makes it way more expensive.

As has been stated, 16 GiB RAM in LPDDR5 is less than 50 bucks even if you just buy a few thousand sticks. But Apple would buy a few million. So they'll probably spend less than that.

Why would they ask SK Hynix to make them a flavor that's a lot pricier than that? What feature would it offer that regular LPDDR5 does not?

The assembly line. We don’t know what the production process looks like

You solder a chip on a package.

That's… the production process.

I didn’t bring it up, people kept claiming it only costs $20,

No, people claim that the difference between 8 and 16, which is what's relevant here, costs $20.

To which you've responded with a nebulous "welllllll but what if their RAM is different", without making any case on why on earth they'd do that.

It’s perfectly relevant to point out that Apple is charging less for RAM upgrades than several of their competitors.

It's not relevant to the discussion of "would it cut into their margins if they were to increase the base". Which, yeah, it would, but by less than $20.

 

[Kal Madda]

Yeah, but we do, except for the very unlikely, implausible, not explained by you scenario where Apple's LPDDR5 has some special sauce that makes it way more expensive.

As has been stated, 16 GiB RAM in LPDDR5 is less than 50 bucks even if you just buy a few thousand sticks. But Apple would buy a few million. So they'll probably spend less than that.

Why would they ask SK Hynix to make them a flavor that's a lot pricier than that? What feature would it offer that regular LPDDR5 does not?

You solder a chip on a package.

That's… the production process.

No, people claim that the difference between 8 and 16, which is what's relevant here, costs $20.

To which you've responded with a nebulous "welllllll but what if their RAM is different", without making any case on why on earth they'd do that.

It's not relevant to the discussion of "would it cut into their margins if they were to increase the base". Which, yeah, it would, but by less than $20.

We don’t. You have speculation, and speculation isn’t the same as fact.

Maybe they asked SK Hynix to make it a different footprint because it would fit better on the chip package. We simply don’t know.

But does the line have to stop and retool in order to “solder the chip on a package”? There’s potential for variables involved that we don’t know about that could also affect production cost.

And again, production cost doesn’t really matter, because retail cost from Apple is actually cheaper than many competing products. And when it’s not cheaper, it’s usually about the same cost as competitors are charging. Computer manufacturers don’t sell hardware at exactly the production cost. Computer companies always markup hardware, that’s how they turn a profit.

Also, it’s a slippery slope. Once you start thinking the way “16GB is only x amount more, let’s up it to that”, then 32GB is only x amount more, and would you expect 32GB as base spec? 64? 128? 256? At some point the base spec RAM just gets really ridiculous. Or maybe, the base spec RAM shouldn’t be dictated by production costs but by the wants and needs of most base-spec customers. And it seems like most base spec customers are happy with 8GB of RAM.

And again, we have no idea about how much it could cut into margins or not. We can make guesses, and you may even think they’re educated ones, but they’re just guesses, nothing more.

8GB is plenty for the vast majority of base spec customers. And it offers a nice price reduction while still offering all of the other great hardware such as the beautiful display, high quality sound system, unrivaled battery runtime, extra ports, high performance, etc.

 

[ric22]

Yeah, but we do, except for the very unlikely, implausible, not explained by you scenario where Apple's LPDDR5 has some special sauce that makes it way more expensive.

As has been stated, 16 GiB RAM in LPDDR5 is less than 50 bucks even if you just buy a few thousand sticks. But Apple would buy a few million. So they'll probably spend less than that.

Why would they ask SK Hynix to make them a flavor that's a lot pricier than that? What feature would it offer that regular LPDDR5 does not?



You solder a chip on a package.

That's… the production process.



No, people claim that the difference between 8 and 16, which is what's relevant here, costs $20.

To which you've responded with a nebulous "welllllll but what if their RAM is different", without making any case on why on earth they'd do that.



It's not relevant to the discussion of "would it cut into their margins if they were to increase the base". Which, yeah, it would, but by less than $20.

Let's see if any of your points, all of which are entirely correct and valid, are eventually addressed, or remain completely ignored...

As opposed to dismissing them all with a comment along the lines of, "well why not ask for a TRILLION TERABYTES of RAM? Where will this end?!?🤯"

I think enough RAM so the average person doesn't regularly have to use swap, and can play some kinda-modern games, would be enough- 16GB.

 

[Kal Madda]

Let's see if any of your points, all of which are entirely correct and valid, are addressed, or completely ignored...

As opposed to something like, "well why not ask for a TRILLION TERABYTES of RAM? Where will this end?!?🤯"

I think enough RAM so the average person doesn't regularly have to use swap, and can play some kinda-modern games, would be enough- 16GB.

8GB is plenty of RAM. It doesn’t regularly require swap, even when I’m using it for 3D modeling/sculpting and graphic design work. And it can play modern games perfectly fine as well. Besides, not everyone is heavy into gaming.

And it’s perfectly valid to point out that this is a never ending slippery slope due to the arbitrary reasoning being applied. Base RAM spec should be increased based on something less arbitrary than what people think doesn’t cost much more than the previous step of RAM to produce. It should be based on the average needs and wants of most base-spec customers, and 8GB seems to meet most base spec customers wants and needs. That’s probably why they seem to sell so well, and customer satisfaction is very high.

 

[chucker23n1]

We don’t. You have speculation,

I have:

• photos of the chip, including its markings
• the vendor (SK Hynix)
• SK Hynix products with similar markings
• basic knowledge of LPDDR5

What do you have? Idle speculation that somehow invalidates most of the above.

Maybe they asked SK Hynix to make it a different footprint because it would fit better on the chip package.

Yes, maybe. But they wouldn't do that if it would significantly impact the price. Instead, they'd simply change the package to fit the RAM.

It's not like they designed the SoC, then realized, "aw crap, we forgot the RAM!". No, they knew from the start that they wanted to fit LPDDR5 modules on there. They even knew how many, not just because the package design mandates it, but because the amount of memory controllers inside the SoC does, too.

But does the line have to stop and retool in order to “solder the chip on a package”?

"Tim! No!! We forgot the RAM!"

What?

And again, production cost doesn’t really matter,

I mean, I love how you keep bringing things up, then say "it doesn't really matter". Good stuff.

because retail cost from Apple is actually cheaper than many competing products.

OK, so your defense here is that an upgrade from 8 to 16 for $200 is "actually cheaper than many competing products"? Fascinating.

Computer manufacturers don’t sell hardware at exactly the production cost. Computer companies always markup hardware, that’s how they turn a profit.

Nobody is disputing any of this. Nobody has said Apple should change BTO prices to $20 instead of $200.

Also, it’s a slippery slope. Once you start thinking the way “16GB is only x amount more, let’s up it to that”, then 32GB is only x amount more, and would you expect 32GB as base spec? 64? 128? 256?

Yeah, except, no, because my argument isn't "the base RAM should be way higher" but "the base RAM should've been increased after more than a decade". That's it. As I've said many times, if it were 12 instead of 8, that would already be quite an improvement.

At some point the base spec RAM just gets really ridiculous.

Yes, arguments ad absurdum are ridiculous. So why did you make one only to defeat it?

Or maybe, the base spec RAM shouldn’t be dictated by production costs

To a point, sure.

And again, we have no idea about how much it could cut into margins or not. We can make guesses, and you may even think they’re educated ones, but they’re just guesses, nothing more.

They're very educated. If we can't have a discussion based on this much information, why even have MacRumors Forums at all?

it offers a nice price reduction

It does not.

while still offering all of the other great hardware such as the beautiful display, high quality sound system, unrivaled battery runtime, extra ports, high performance, etc.

This is off topic.

 

[chucker23n1]

I think enough RAM so the average person doesn't regularly have to use swap, and can play some kinda-modern games, would be enough- 16GB.

I think I'd be fine if all Macs start at 12 for the next ~four years. Then, 2028, start at 16.

8 seems a bit low. Not critically so that I'd yell "no! don't buy this!!", but enough that I'd advise people think about "how long do I plan to keep this for?", which I expect is generally long enough that they'll eventually find 8 a bit annoying. All it takes is an OS that takes more resources (which is almost inevitable), another Electron app they have to regularly use that loves to gobble up RAM, or heck, even anything that uses the GPU more. Cause it's the same RAM. Cause it's unified.