Exactly. I only need the performance of an M3 Pro, but I’m heavy into multi-tasking because I wear a lot of different hats in my job and in my personal hobbies so I jump between a lot of random apps during any given day.It would be wise for Apple to differentiate their chips based on intended use. I do photo editing and videography so having a chip with better raw performance is important. My M1M Studio is perfect for this. But someone that does coding may benefit more from a different chip arrangement. It’s not just “more better faster” anymore. Chips are becoming more use-case specific (AI, graphics, ray tracing, etc) and I’d like to see that reflected in Apple SOCs.
I would’ve purchased the M3 Pro with 48GB memory if it was available, and then upgrade it in 4-5 years, but all it comes with is 36GB which is a weird amount. So I go up to the M3 Max 14/30 and couldn’t get it with 48GB, just 96GB for $800 more. So I go up to the 16/40 M3 Max for $300 more and get 48GB. Well at that point it’s only $200 more to get 64GB (which is an insane amount of money for only 16GB of memory but I digress) so I get the 64GB and now I’m going to keep it for 6-7 years instead of 4-5 years.
I don’t think Apple is making any more money off of this madness. They’re just killing future Mac sales by 1. Delaying upgrade cycles because people end up buying more computer than they need or 2. They’re pissing people off with these upgrade ladders where you can’t quite get the one thing you need for your job or hobby without shelling out ungodly amounts of cash and people will think long and hard about going with Apple next time at these prices. Their SSD prices are especially disgusting. I know that I came really close to not even upgrading and I had been planning for a long time to migrate off of Intel three generations in. I wouldn’t have done it if I hadn’t learned about Swappa in these forums and sold my old Macs for good money to pay for this ridiculously overpriced machine.