Macs would be more "value for money" if Apple doubled RAM & SSD across the board

[sam_dean]

Keep "as is" the

- Apple chip core counts
- screen size
- at respective price points

But double the current

- GB of memory
- GB/TB of storage
- SSD throughput & top off at 7.5GB/s

And all Macs would be "value for money"

Base model Macs with 8GB RAM & 256GB SSD largely stayed stagnant since year model 2012 Macs.

In 2023, 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD should be found in M2 Macs such as

- $599 Mac mini
- $1199 Macbook Air 13"
- $1299 Macbook Pro 13"
- $1299 iMac 24"

While, 32GB RAM & 1TB SSD should be found in M2 Pro Macs such as

- $1299 Mac mini
- $1999 MBP 14"
- $2499 MBP 16"

64GB RAM & 2TB SSD should be found in M2 Max Macs such as

- $3099 MBP 14"
- $3499 MBP 16"

For Mac Studio

- $1999 M1 Max 64GB RAM & 1TB SSD
- $3999 M1 Ultra 128GB RAM & 2TB SSD

The Mac chips included do not need to change at these price points as they're plenty superior to anything Intel/AMD are making based on performance per Watt metrics.

Apple just comes short at RAM & SSD. Improve those points and they're golden.

Only place 8GB RAM & 256GB SSD would be permissible would be Macs based on a 3nm A17 Bionic chip such as

- $699 Macbook 12"
- $299-399 Mac mini that used the smaller enclosure of a 2022 Apple TV 4K

Final macOS Security Update would be released by 2032, a decade later.

 

[chabig]

Think of the children! Why stop at doubling? Triple or quadruple everything (for the same price of course).

 

[Altis]

They would have been heroes of the people if they gave the base M2 Mini 16 GB of RAM and dual-chip 256 GB SSD (hardly costs them anything more) instead of lowering it by $100.

 

[KPOM]

They would have been heroes of the people if they gave the base M2 Mini 16 GB of RAM and dual-chip 256 GB SSD (hardly costs them anything more) instead of lowering it by $100.

The people paying $599 for a Mac mini aren’t concerned about the speed differences between a 2-module vs. 1-module SSD, or 8 vs 16 GB RAM.

 

[sam_dean]

The people paying $599 for a Mac mini aren’t concerned about the speed differences between a 2-module vs. 1-module SSD, or 8 vs 16 GB RAM.

I agree... people who'd buy base model aren't doing so to edit 4K video. At most 1080p or even 720p as the most taxing use case.

 

[Altis]

The people paying $599 for a Mac mini aren’t concerned about the speed differences between a 2-module vs. 1-module SSD, or 8 vs 16 GB RAM.

Except for all of the people (myself included) who do care and are (well, were) considering this model.

I know the Apple defenders (not you btw) simultaneously go on about what a premium experience Apple is and how great every minor update is, but when it's shown Apple halves or quarters expected drive performance and RAM-starves it while charging exhorbitant prices for small spec bumps, then suddenly it's only meant for little old ladies who just need a computer to check emails after church on Sundays.

Starting at C$800 is great but just the two upgrades to resolve the flaws in it bring it to C$1300, then to C$1700 for the M2 Pro chip (might as well at that point), which is probably the sweet spot. But then for that money I could have a 13700K with 64 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD (and twice as fast) plus my 2TB SATA SSD, and a 3070, and have a considerably better machine that I can further upgrade or repair later.

The only other option might be a refurb M1 16/256 for the faster SSD and decent value.

 

[Scarrus]

I think they don't even realise. If they'd do that their market share would go trough the roof. They would be taking over the market IMO.

 

[leman]

Of course it would be better value for money. Unfortunately, Apple is about maximising revenue, not minimising it. And folks who believe that higher-specced base Macs would significantly raise Apple's market share are overly optimistic.

 

[Carlson-online]

I agree... people who'd buy base model aren't doing so to edit 4K video. At most 1080p or even 720p as the most taxing use case.

2 SSD modules also only improves read speeds if you files are on both chips ! If what you need at that moment is only on 1, then it'll be the same speed (per file).

Yes i am ever that you are likkely reading mulitple files at once, but for a lot of work loads, I bet the difference is marginal, and still a tonne faster than most windows laptops. It's like complaining your M3 isn't as fast as the M3 CS, but it is still smoking the ford focus your neighbour has

 

[leman]

2 SSD modules also only improves read speeds if you files are on both chips ! If what you need at that moment is only on 1, then it'll be the same speed (per file).

It's not how this stuff works. The data is stripped across both modules, so files are always on both chips (technical details notwithstanding).

Yes i am ever that you are likkely reading mulitple files at once, but for a lot of work loads, I bet the difference is marginal, and still a tonne faster than most windows laptops. It's like complaining your M3 isn't as fast as the M3 CS, but it is still smoking the ford focus your neighbour has

Nobody is going to notice the marginally slower SSD on these models in practice. People are just upset because they feel like they are being cheated. It's an understandable psychological reaction.

 

[Falhófnir]

This would make Macs spec-for-spec on the cheap side of comparable PCs, so I don't see it. It would be nice if there was a 12GB RAM tier, a $100 upgrade, and standard in the higher end MBA configuration. Apple did double storage tiers quite recently, which is nice (no more 128GB MBAs) though I suspect the tradeoff for that was the move from MLC to TLC memory chips. I don't think the present configurations are as outrageous as they were before that, though 8GB RAM is now at the point it could become a bottleneck for the M seres computers into the latter half of their support cycles. A 12/512 Air at $1,499 would be a great sweet spot.

 

[Scarrus]

Of course it would be better value for money. Unfortunately, Apple is about maximising revenue, not minimising it. And folks who believe that higher-specced base Macs would significantly raise Apple's market share are overly optimistic.

Why is that?

 

[leman]

Why is that?

Because people who have prejudice agains Macs (or for whom a Mac simply isn't a good choice) are unlikely to change camp just because of a price drop. I mean, sure, better bang per buck will convince some customers who are on the fence. Apple certainly will be able to sell more models. But they will also take a cut in their revenue and what worse, set up future expectations. Apple spend decades to cement and optimise their pricing structure. Lowering the prices below what budget PCs are being sold for will unfortunately harm the brand long-term.

Besides, Apple doesn't care much about market share. The majority of the market are cheap, low-quality computers and users who want free or cheap stuff. Apple is only interested in the premium market, where customers have money and are willing to spend it. Just look at iOS vs. Android situation. It's almost 1/4 in terms of market share, but iOS app revenue is around two times higher than that of Android. Totally different markets, totally different business strategies.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I know the Apple defenders (not you btw) simultaneously go on about what a premium experience Apple is and how great every minor update is, but when it's shown Apple halves or quarters expected drive performance and RAM-starves it while charging exhorbitant prices for small spec bumps, then suddenly it's only meant for little old ladies who just need a computer to check emails after church on Sundays.

Best comment of the year. Someone should make an advertising piece for Apple.

"We designed a new PC for your granny – and we think SHE WILL LOVE IT!
With a CPU from 10 years ago, this Mac is not for the faint of heart. Only old people will have THE PATIENCE that it takes to use it.

Available for only $666 in Granny Smith color!"

 

[sam_dean]

Best comment of the year. Someone should make an advertising piece for Apple.

"We designed a new PC for your granny – and we think SHE WILL LOVE IT!
With a CPU from 10 years ago, this Mac is not for the faint of heart. Only old people will have THE PATIENCE that it takes to use it.

Available for only $666 in Granny Smith color!"

Apple probably has stats that most users that need more than 2.8GB/s SSD throughput aren't buying the 8/256 model.

Lotsa families who just need a laptop for non-media school work like opening Word, Excel, browser, Messaging, Mail, etc do not need 7.5GB/s on a 8GB memory 256GB SSD Mac.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Apple probably has stats that most users that need more than 2.8GB/s SSD throughput aren't buying the 8/256 model.

Lotsa families who just need a laptop for non-media school work like opening Word, Excel, browser, Messaging, Mail, etc do not need 7.5GB/s on a 8GB memory 256GB SSD Mac.

Sush, don't spoil the fun of our Granny Smith Mac edition!

 

[maflynn]

You can say that for any and all products if only <insert company> doubled the capacity/size/performance of their product it would be even more value.

In other news, water was found to be wet

 

[Joe Dohn]

You can say that for any and all products if only <insert company> doubled the capacity/size/performance of their product it would be even more value.

In other news, water was found to be wet

I think the whole issue here is that Apple advertises a premium experience, and people think that artificially lowering SSD speeds doesn't offer that premium experience.

 

[sam_dean]

You can say that for any and all products if only <insert company> doubled the capacity/size/performance of their product it would be even more value.

In other news, water was found to be wet

PC OEMs have competition among themselves.

Apple largely doesn't...

Just wishful thinking for a return of Steve's Apple. Tim's Apple is so pressured to squeeze as much margin as possible hence base model 8GB RAM being unchanged since 2016 & base model 256GB SSD unchanged since 2012.

Since Nov 2020 it should be base model

- M1 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD @ 5.6GB/s at current base MSRPs
- M1 Pro 32GB RAM & 1TB SSD @ 7.5GB/s at current base MSRPs
- M1 Max 64GB RAM & 1TB SSD @ 7.5GB/s at current base MSRPs
- M1 Ultra 128GB RAM & 2TB SSD @ 7.5GB/s at current base MSRPs

Future $699 2024 Macbook 12" & $299-399 2024 Mac mini

- 3nm A17 Bionic chip 8GB RAM & 256GB SSD @ 2.8GB/s at above mentioned base MSRP

 

[maflynn]

I think the whole issue here is that Apple advertises a premium experience, and people think that artificially lowering SSD speeds doesn't offer that premium experience.

I won't disagree with that sentiment.

 

[Digitalguy]

The real issue with Apple is not the base model, but the BTO model. The huge premium for RAM and SSD upgrades and lack of upgradability in desktop devices compared to Windows devices and the fact that BTO devices are virtually never on sale is the real issue.
The $500/600 base Mac Mini is great value, but once you spec it up (personally even 16GB is not enough for me and I wouldn't get any less than 1TB for the SSD) value disappears (you can get a great mini pc with Ryzen 7, very quiet operation, Thunderbolt, 32GB of upgradable RAM and 1 TB of upgradable NVME SSD, slots for more storage etc for quite a bit less, under $800)
While I don't expect upgradability and not even giving double the RAM and storage for free, I would welcome more reasonalby priced upgrades and even the end of the BTO system....

 

[sam_dean]

The real issue with Apple is not the base model, but the BTO model. The huge premium for RAM and SSD upgrades and lack of upgradability in desktop devices compared to Windows devices and the fact that BTO devices are virtually never on sale is the real issue.
The $500/600 base Mac Mini is great value, but once you spec it up (personally even 16GB is not enough for me and I wouldn't get any less than 1TB for the SSD) value disappears (you can get a great mini pc with Ryzen 7, very quiet operation, Thunderbolt, 32GB of upgradable RAM and 1 TB of upgradable NVME SSD, slots for more storage etc for quite a bit less, under $800)

What's being spoken of is the lowest-end base models that more than 80% of users will likely buy.

BTOs are the last 1% of performance.

 

[kiranmk2]

Apple is a business. The price points and products are what the market will bear. If people stopped buying the base M2 MBA or started returning it in droves then they would look to either lower the price or bump the specs. With that being said, the integrated nature of the M chips does mean that non-standard memory quantities could be implemented. Instead of bumping the MBA to 16 GB, it could be bumped to 10 or 12 GB.

You can see them test the market for pricing from time to time

• iPhone X launched at $999 which was a large jump over the iPhone 8 price - the success showed them the market could sustain a $999 price. The iPhone XS/XR was a further test to see whether demand for a $999 phone would remain when if it wasn't a one-off special edition and the lower end phone had many of the new features (FaceID, full screen etc) - it did and was also succesful (along with the even more expensive XS Max)
• The M1 MBA is still around at $999 - if the M2 MBA is massively outsold by the M1 MBA then expect Apple to either lower latest MBA price or bump the specs slightly

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

So you're saying they'd be better value if they gave you more for the same money? Interesting, please send me your doctoral thesis on this, I'd love to hear more.

 

[kasakka]

The real issue with Apple is not the base model, but the BTO model. The huge premium for RAM and SSD upgrades and lack of upgradability in desktop devices compared to Windows devices and the fact that BTO devices are virtually never on sale is the real issue.
The $500/600 base Mac Mini is great value, but once you spec it up (personally even 16GB is not enough for me and I wouldn't get any less than 1TB for the SSD) value disappears (you can get a great mini pc with Ryzen 7, very quiet operation, Thunderbolt, 32GB of upgradable RAM and 1 TB of upgradable NVME SSD, slots for more storage etc for quite a bit less, under $800)
While I don't expect upgradability and not even giving double the RAM and storage for free, I would welcome more reasonalby priced upgrades and even the end of the BTO system....

Agreed.

Atm the equivalent storage compared to a standard M.2 NVME drive is about 3-4x higher cost on an Apple product. With no 3rd party options and no upgradeability there is no way to do something like "buy smaller size now, upgrade when/if you need more" or you have to resort to external enclosure drives.

Meanwhile making the RAM impossible to update also means you have to sell your whole machine if you need more memory.

All this is borderline acceptable on a laptop where most people never open it, but it's a ridiculous thing on a desktop system. While technically afaik the Mac Studio drives are removable, there is no upgrade option offered afaik and instead of using a standard M.2, they have their proprietary solution.

Apple is at the same time bean counting with the reduced performance baseline drives and then price gouging with the upgrades. All the while advertising "starting from" prices that never end up being what many users need. Especially with no discounts during the year for BTO options.