Mac pricing arbitrage, sort of

[splitpea]

Okay, Apple's pricing is officially absurd. And now I can't decide which computer to buy first.

Here's the computer I'd been awaiting the release of last year -- 14" MBP, 64GB/1TB, any color. I don't much care about the CPU other than it being latest-generation Apple Silicon, just need that sweet, sweet RAM.

Problem. Apple refuses to sell that 64GB of RAM with anything but the absolute highest-end M4 Max CPU. It costs $3900. ($3400 refurb if you can find it!)

But we know you don't need the Max at all (or even the highest-specced Pro!) in order to support 64GB, because this puppy exists. And I have no particular use for the extra CPU power in the Max.

So, instead of the computer I was ready to pay $4k for in 2018 but not in 2025, I'm planning to spend up to $4k on the following:

• $2000 (or $1700 refurb) -- M4 Pro Mac Mini 64GB/512GB to replace a 16GB/1TB workhorse 2020 Intel MBP that I got for cheap a few years ago but is too heavy to move and not a particularly impressive workhorse any more
• $1220 (refurb only) -- M2 Macbook Air 24GB/1TB to replace the 2019 16GB/512GB daily driver I got as a stopgap in 2019 when funds were tight and that carries Sonoma roughly how I imagine a snail would carry a large tortoise on its back.
• $500 for the one I really want or $300 for an OK one -- second 27" 4K external monitor (mostly for the Mini, but occasionally paired with the Air)
• $250 for USB 3 or $500 for Thunderbolt -- 4TB external SSD for the Mini
• TOTAL: $3470 at the low end.

So almost the same amount as the refurb MBP, for the specs I was looking for in the first place, PLUS another computer, PLUS accessories. Or I can go for the new Mini or upgrade either the SSD or the monitor or even pick a 15" M3 Air, and still spend less than on the new MBP (hm, maybe spend the extra on another monitor arm?)

Tell me something isn't messed up about that?

Anyway, sadly, I can't afford to buy both computers at once. So I'm debating which to get first -- should I replace the workhorse now and get by for a while with the sluggish portable? Or replace the daily driver and suffer for a while with a software development machine that can't even hope to keep up with the email/browsing/word processing machine? How would you decide?

 

[Howard2k]

Why are you so adamant about the 64GB?

 

[Bigwaff]

And adamant about M4? What computing activities will you be doing frequently? Perhaps well maintained used Max M1/M2/M3 MBP (to get the 64GB RAM) will meet your computing needs.

 

[splitpea]

M4 for the NPU. 64GB because for some of my software projects it would be helpful to fit much larger datasets in memory than I can now. (And in some cases necessary, because the tools I'm using will error out if you don't give them enough RAM for the dataset, and are unwilling to use swap for that purpose.)

As you can see, I'm totally fine with an older generation for the daily driver, but I really miss having a properly state of the art workhorse machine -- at this point it's even holding back my career. And I LIKE having separate computers for separate purposes. I just usually can't justify them in terms of price.

Yes, I've considered getting older generation refurbs, and determined that I'm not satisfied with the value proposition for my specific work. It's not really worth my while to type out all the details and research I've done. Suffice it to say, I didn't post this to ask for alternatives. I posted it to a) vent about Apple's extortionate pricing model for the current generation of MBPs and the weird incentives they've created as a result, and b) get some folks' thoughts on order of operations.

 

[Howard2k]

at this point it's even holding back my career.

I think there is your answer. Make it happen! It's frustrating that you can't get the exact configuration you want, but it will pay for itself over time, both in real dollars, and in career path, by the sounds of it.

 

[bzgnyc2]

Okay, Apple's pricing is officially absurd. And now I can't decide which computer to buy first.

Tell me something isn't messed up about that?

Yes, call it "price discrimination" (in the economics sense) or the "razor and blades" model, Apple's pricing doesn't make sense from a components perspective.

The best example I've seen (can't remember who posted this first) was that one could buy two Mac Mini M4 16/256GB for the price of one Mac Mini M4 32/512GB. In other words, the incremental price of the 16/256GB upgrade cost the same as a whole Apple system with those same specs. I guess a macOS, an M4 processor, and the rest of the Mac Mini chassis is worth approximately $0.

Anyway, sadly, I can't afford to buy both computers at once. So I'm debating which to get first -- should I replace the workhorse now and get by for a while with the sluggish portable? Or replace the daily driver and suffer for a while with a software development machine that can't even hope to keep up with the email/browsing/word processing machine? How would you decide?

As you can see, I'm totally fine with an older generation for the daily driver, but I really miss having a properly state of the art workhorse machine -- at this point it's even holding back my career. And I LIKE having separate computers for separate purposes. I just usually can't justify them in terms of price.

Replace the one that is holding back your career the most first. In your case I would guess that is the workhorse machine because your current workhorse simply doesn't have the RAM to do what you want. On the other hand, either of your current laptops should be more than fine as a daily driver assuming the OS/configuration is optimized.

P.S.I would avoid a fully-loaded Mac Mini M4 Pro from a value perspective. At that point you are so close to a Mac Studio M4 Max that I would find the extra ~ $400. For which you will get ~ 2xGPU, 50% more P-cores, 2x memory bandwidth, and a better chassis.

 

[Howard2k]

The best example I've seen (can't remember who posted this first) was that one could buy two Mac Mini M4 16/256GB for the price of one Mac Mini M4 32/512GB. In other words, the incremental price of the 16/256GB upgrade cost the same as a whole Apple system with those same specs. I guess a macOS, an M4 processor, and the rest of the Mac Mini chassis is worth approximately $0.

Pricing is not cost+ on these items.

 

[bzgnyc2]

Pricing is not cost+ on these items.

Yup Apple's pricing is basically the opposite of cost+.

However, people generally hate (to be on the receiving end of) price discrimination. Air travel is probably where the average consumer sees it the most and why people are willing to spend time trying to game it. Then most companies aren't quite as blatent on using it as Apple is with the Mac Mini M4 memory/storage pricing. There it is almost impossible to ignore that the price charged for the upgrades are unrelated to the component costs.

Apple also charges a premium for upgrades on their iPhones but not as obvious. The estimated BOM on the iPhone 16 Pro is 15% higher than the iPhone 16 but they price it 50% higher (at least in the US). That situation is a little more paletable for most people. The equivalent to the Mac Mini M4 pricing would be if Apple charged $800 to take an iPhone 16/128GB to 256GB.

 

[splitpea]

Replace the one that is holding back your career the most first. In your case I would guess that is the workhorse machine because your current workhorse simply doesn't have the RAM to do what you want. On the other hand, either of your current laptops should be more than fine as a daily driver assuming the OS/configuration is optimized.

Unfortunately, some software I need won't run on older OS versions, so I'm stuck trying to run Sonoma on the 2019 MBA. It does about 90% of what I need it to, but -- for instance -- while Zoom is OK, I can't take Google Meet video calls on it. It beachballs so hard it locks up for minutes at a time. It also really struggles with some of the spreadsheets I work with. And there are plenty of poorly coded websites (mostly e-commerce sites, tbh) that will cause severe slowdowns or mild beachballing if I have the audacity to open more than one tab at once or leave a tab open for more than a minute or two. Not to mention that it gets even worse in summer due to mediocre thermal regulation.

The 2020 MBP can (just barely) handle the Google Meet calls, but it's a 16" and I'm a small person. So I could promote it to daily driver. But while that would be fine around the house, it would cause issues when traveling, because it's just much too heavy for me to haul around for a full day on transit and through airports. I keep just enough important stuff on the local drive that I'm not really able to take something that isn't the primary when working away from home if it's for longer than a weekend. Almost everything is automatically backed up to cloud, but some software loses your work if you forget to close a file on one device before opening it on another.

Basically, I really could do with an upgrade to the daily driver already, and will really need one within about 12 mo. I've been holding off for a while due to financial constraints, but it's been a headache for years now.

P.S.I would avoid a fully-loaded Mac Mini M4 Pro from a value perspective. At that point you are so close to a Mac Studio M4 Max that I would find the extra ~ $400. For which you will get ~ 2xGPU, 50% more P-cores, 2x memory bandwidth, and a better chassis.

It's a nice idea. The Studio adds $700 (35% of the cost) for that, though -- it's an entirely different pricing ballpark. And while the extra memory bandwidth sounds nice, I'm not sure I'd get enough value out of the rest. Again, there's a reason I'm not excited about paying the premium for the Max in the MBP. If the Studio were legit upgradable, yeah, I'd consider it -- as you can see, I'm inclined to fairly long replacement cycles.

 

[GMShadow]

Apple bases most of the options based on prior sales data, unfortunately. They made a real shift starting with the M3 Macs to offer more 'extra RAM' tiers at retail rather than just extra storage, for example - and it's not consistent because they know different machine buyers have different expectations. The 14" MBP M4 Pro retail tiers have double storage as the next upgrade, and then the next ram tier + Max chip for the third. The 16" MBP does the opposite - the next tier is a RAM upgrade, and the third is double storage + Max chip.

If I had to guess, they determined that most MBP buyers that went for 64GB opted for the Mx Max chips anyway, so that's one less board configuration they have to 'stock'. The Mac mini doesn't have a Max option, so Apple sets aside some M4 Pro + 64GB production for it.

Maybe they change things around for M5 or M6 if the base RAM capacities jump again and it becomes a 2x multiplier once more.


And I feel you on the Intel Macs showing their age - I relegated my 2019 16" to NAS/iTunes library duty at this point as the 4-5 hours of battery life and general sluggishness was getting old (plus periodic GPU kernel panics and SMC issues). If you've been running it without any changes since 2019, you may want to consider doing a nuke+pave and see if that helps - mine got less cranky after I reinstalled the OS at the very least (which doesn't require a drive wipe or data loss).


As for possibly cutting some costs, a 16GB MBA is pretty damn performant - I've struggled to get mine to chug even once. You can get an M3 16/1TB 13" for $1099 from Apple as a refurb. Or if you really want 24GB, then 24/512 is the same price or $50 less to drop back to M2 (but I'd spend the extra $50 for at least 1 more year of software support).


And while resale prices aren't what they were, you should be able to sell your old Macs for at least a couple hundred bucks each locally to help defray the cost of external drives or just buying the new Macs at all.

 

[Parowdy]

Only now it is absurd? Sure.
I guess welcome to Mac?

 

[splitpea]

And I feel you on the Intel Macs showing their age - I relegated my 2019 16" to NAS/iTunes library duty at this point as the 4-5 hours of battery life and general sluggishness was getting old (plus periodic GPU kernel panics and SMC issues). If you've been running it without any changes since 2019, you may want to consider doing a nuke+pave and see if that helps - mine got less cranky after I reinstalled the OS at the very least (which doesn't require a drive wipe or data loss).

Yeah, the 2020 pro is at least still able to do all essential computing tasks. The 2019 Air... When I got it, I noted that its CPU did roughly the same in benchmarks as the one in the the 2012 MBP it was replacing. But I was only getting it as a stopgap until Apple Silicon was released -- would have waited another 18 mo but software I needed for a client project literally wouldn't open at all with only 8GB RAM. (I'd been holding out for a laptop with 32GB! This was the first time I got a new computer without quadrupling the RAM, which in the early 2000s happened easily every 3 years, and then Apple kind of stalled out on RAM for a decade.)

As for possibly cutting some costs, a 16GB MBA is pretty damn performant - I've struggled to get mine to chug even once. You can get an M3 16/1TB 13" for $1099 from Apple as a refurb. Or if you really want 24GB, then 24/512 is the same price or $50 less to drop back to M2 (but I'd spend the extra $50 for at least 1 more year of software support).

I need the 24GB. I'd actually strongly prefer 32 (I would have gotten 32GB back in 2015 if it'd been available), but 16 is getting cramped, and I need this machine to last a while. Similarly, 512GB is a squeeze these days. I've only got so little space on this MBA because it was meant as a stopgap to last a year or two, and I had intended to replace it with an AS machine with 32GB/1TB within a couple years -- and then life happened.

And while resale prices aren't what they were, you should be able to sell your old Macs for at least a couple hundred bucks each locally to help defray the cost of external drives or just buying the new Macs at all.

Yup, already priced into the planning!

 

[bzgnyc2]

Unfortunately, some software I need won't run on older OS versions, so I'm stuck trying to run Sonoma on the 2019 MBA. It does about 90% of what I need it to, but -- for instance -- while Zoom is OK, I can't take Google Meet video calls on it. It beachballs so hard it locks up for minutes at a time. It also really struggles with some of the spreadsheets I work with. And there are plenty of poorly coded websites (mostly e-commerce sites, tbh) that will cause severe slowdowns or mild beachballing if I have the audacity to open more than one tab at once or leave a tab open for more than a minute or two.

You might try a clean install of Sonoma on your system. My MacBook Air 2020 i3 (1.1GHz, 3.2GHz peak) w/16GB never beachballs under normal use. I use Google Meet without issues. MS Teams (in the browser) did stress my system when run under Firefox but found it works fine for me (despite the mobile i3 with 1.1GHz cores) under Brave.

Whenever my system is feeling slow, it invariable comes down to:
-Running out of RAM despite only running pedestrian apps with 16GB of RAM
-Runaway processes/background apps

Unfortunately recent macOS and its growing baggage of services and background processes have a knack for runaway processes and memory leaks. These have to be addressed based on the service (clean out some cache, rebuild some database, turn off a service, reboot, etc).

The other most common culprit is browsers. Some have memory leaks and just gobble up RAM over time. It's annoying but restarting these from time-to-time helps a lot. Also I've found Brave better at memory leaks. I check Activity Monitor whenever my system starts to hesitate.

Also too many websites are just bloated with trash today. Sure a Mac Mx Pro/Max/Ultra/etc will mitigate that but it's kind of a waste. I switched from Safari to Orion for its builtin adblockers as well as latest WebKit engine even on macOS versions Apple has left behind. However, I also now use Brave as I've found some websites are just much faster with it. Like it or not, some website authors just optimize their site for it.

Then Apple seems to be optimizing WebKit for Apple Silicon so WebKit browsers (such as Safari) are getting relatively slower on Intel processors. Which is unfortunate since slowdowns are felt more acutely on already slower processors.

Not to mention that it gets even worse in summer due to mediocre thermal regulation.

Yeah, I've heard the last generations of Intel i7 processors used in the MBP just aren't good for laptops.

I can see why you would want to replace them all but if you can't do that now you will have to choose. It will be a tradeoff of course.

It's a nice idea. The Studio adds $700 (35% of the cost) for that, though -- it's an entirely different pricing ballpark. And while the extra memory bandwidth sounds nice, I'm not sure I'd get enough value out of the rest. Again, there's a reason I'm not excited about paying the premium for the Max in the MBP. If the Studio were legit upgradable, yeah, I'd consider it -- as you can see, I'm inclined to fairly long replacement cycles.

Yes, if you compare the Max Studio M4 Max against the base Mac Mini M4 Pro without 10Gbit Ethernet than it's $700. I compared against the upper end Mac Mini M4 Pro to bring them into a more comparable configuration but of course if you don't value those options than they're just a waste. I just brought the Studio up since you seemed sensitive not just the money but the value of it all. I think the Studio M4 Max is a better value than a max'd out Mini M4 Pro but the Studio does start at a higher price so you'll decide the tradeoff for your situation.

 

[zesta]

Yup Apple's pricing is basically the opposite of cost+.

However, people generally hate (to be on the receiving end of) price discrimination. Air travel is probably where the average consumer sees it the most and why people are willing to spend time trying to game it. Then most companies aren't quite as blatent on using it as Apple is with the Mac Mini M4 memory/storage pricing. There it is almost impossible to ignore that the price charged for the upgrades are unrelated to the component costs.

Apple also charges a premium for upgrades on their iPhones but not as obvious. The estimated BOM on the iPhone 16 Pro is 15% higher than the iPhone 16 but they price it 50% higher (at least in the US). That situation is a little more paletable for most people. The equivalent to the Mac Mini M4 pricing would be if Apple charged $800 to take an iPhone 16/128GB to 256GB.

The iPhone 16 Pro is $200 more than the 16, which is 18-20% more depending on the storage. To compare Apples to Apples, going from 256GB to 512GB on the iPhone or the Mac mini costs $200. So, they are the same.

 

[bzgnyc2]

The iPhone 16 Pro is $200 more than the 16, which is 18-20% more depending on the storage.

My mistake -- I meant the Apple 16 Pro Max. I was using the numbers from this site:

The Real Production Costs of Smartphones Over The Years

Let's check out the list of smartphones with information about production cost (Bill of materials plus manufacturing cost), retail price and profit margin.

www.techwalls.com

Production Costs from 3rd parties are of course educated estimates (I am sure Apple has the real numbers but in a vault somewhere).

To compare Apples to Apples, going from 256GB to 512GB on the iPhone or the Mac mini costs $200. So, they are the same.

Interesting I hadn't compared storage upgrade costs between iPhones and Macs before but agree they are the same. In both cases very high relative to market/production costs.

However, the point I was trying to make was that the storage and RAM upgrade pricing on the Mac Mini (and other low-end Macs but less so on the high-end Macs) is so high that it's obvious you aren't paying "cost+" since the upgrade price could buy a whole 2nd system with that much storage and RAM. Apple doesn't even do that on the iPhone.

In any case, the summary for the OP is yes Apple's upgrade pricing is frustrating, especially RAM upgrades on low-end Macs. Instead of the "cost+" model common in the PC industry, they look to capture more value from the buyer via (economic) price discrimination. Though it is a little more blatant on the Mac Mini than is common, we have to either live with it or switch platforms...

 

[zesta]

My mistake -- I meant the Apple 16 Pro Max. I was using the numbers from this site:

The Real Production Costs of Smartphones Over The Years

Let's check out the list of smartphones with information about production cost (Bill of materials plus manufacturing cost), retail price and profit margin.

www.techwalls.com

Production Costs from 3rd parties are of course educated estimates (I am sure Apple has the real numbers but in a vault somewhere).



Interesting I hadn't compared storage upgrade costs between iPhones and Macs before but agree they are the same. In both cases very high relative to market/production costs.

However, the point I was trying to make was that the storage and RAM upgrade pricing on the Mac Mini (and other low-end Macs but less so on the high-end Macs) is so high that it's obvious you aren't paying "cost+" since the upgrade price could buy a whole 2nd system with that much storage and RAM. Apple doesn't even do that on the iPhone.

In any case, the summary for the OP is yes Apple's upgrade pricing is frustrating, especially RAM upgrades on low-end Macs. Instead of the "cost+" model common in the PC industry, they look to capture more value from the buyer via (economic) price discrimination. Though it is a little more blatant on the Mac Mini than is common, we have to either live with it or switch platforms...

I agree that the upgrade pricing is higher for Apple... I'm just not sure what you mean about it being more blatant on the Mini... the costs per GB are the same. I also think Apple is probably subsidizing the lower end models a bit to hit a certain price point, thus artificially lowering the base cost of the Mini. Would we all be happier if the storage upgrades were a bit cheaper, but the base Mini was $999 instead of $599?

 

[bzgnyc2]

I agree that the upgrade pricing is higher for Apple... I'm just not sure what you mean about it being more blatant on the Mini... the costs per GB are the same. I also think Apple is probably subsidizing the lower end models a bit to hit a certain price point, thus artificially lowering the base cost of the Mini. Would we all be happier if the storage upgrades were a bit cheaper, but the base Mini was $999 instead of $599?

The use of (economic) price discrimination. The economic theory around price discrimination is well documented in textbooks and literature so I won't repeat it all here. The summary is that it allows the seller to maximize groff profit and volume while allowing some people to pay less (but of course mathematically for that to be true some people pay more) than they would if there was only a single price.

What's blatent in the Mini is pricing 16GB of RAM and 256GB of storage upgrades for the same price as a whole Mini that includes 16GB of RAM and 256GB of storage as well as a lot of other presumably valuable components. Or looking it at it another way, pricing memory upgrades on the Mac Mini (and other low-end Macs) at twice the price of memory on the higher-end Macs. If it was reversed people would have justification for why memory on the (higher-performance, higher memory bandwidth, etc) Mac Studio/Pro costs more than the Mini/etc, but hard to understand why RAM upgrades on the low-end Macs cost twice the higher-end Macs.

To your point on the upsides, price discrimination let's the seller make a version of the product accessible to someone who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford it while increasing the seller's total profits. However, it shouldn't be surprising that it is a constant source of complaint on this board as people (at least in the US but I presume elsewhere) generally hate it. Which is why companies usually try to disguise it more. What's typical is to price a marginally higher quality but hard to compare product or service much higher. As an example, first/business class seats with a meal and free drinks costs an airline more but not the typical 5-10x more. Similarly, I remember a high-end German car maker selling their V12 upgrade for $120K versus $80K for the V8 version. It didn't cost them $40K more to put a V12 in that car than the V8 (even amortizing the development expense of the V12) but at that level nobody cares since no one needs a V12 (even if they are wonderful). On the flip side, people have gone to great lengths to avoid the pricing schemes that airlines used to sell economy seats to business customers at much higher prices than leisure travelers.

In the case of the Mac Mini M4, if Apple had originally priced the base model at $700 instead of $600 and then priced RAM and storage upgrades at half their current price, I believe complaints would be dramatically less. Apple would make less money of course and some people would be priced out of the computer but other people wouldn't feel gouged. Whether Apple's current pricing strategy is a good thing in the long-run TBD. It maximizes gross margin but it may erode brand loyalty/value.