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

[Analog Kid]

BTO is hardly friction. These days so much is ordered online and when you click buy on any Mac you don’t have to go through any extra steps you’re just brought straight to the configuration page.

BTO Minis aren't available from the stores until late February. That's friction. Hell, from a sales perspective, "come back tomorrow" is friction.

If the whole point of the base model is to upsell, you'd want to be able to do that bait and switch in the moment, right? Not ask customers to wait a month. Why have the bait in ready stock but the switch a month away?

 

[leman]

It’s pretty clear based on off the shelf prices that Apple charges between 60-80% margin on SSD and Memory.

Not sure how you can make this argument as Apple does not use any shelf components. Their RAM modules are fully custom orders which have extremely low power consumption compared to publicly advertised LPDDR5 chips (and they have like 2x more connector pins). Nothing is known about the SSD Apple uses either as the serial numbers are not described in any public catalogues. What we do know that Apple SSDs have advanced resilience features (data flush on power loss) and there is indirect evidence that their endurance is higher than that of openly sold consumer SSDs.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully agree that Apple upgrade prices are very high and likely not based on component costs. The $200 per tier model is something Apple has introduced a long time ago, and it’s still this high because the consumers are apparently willing to pay these prices. I also agree that Apple could change the model and still make a decent profit (although their revenue would suffer). But we can’t really speculate on the margins for these components. Because it’s not standard tech.

 

[Matt Leaf]

This is such a great post, OP. I agree wholeheartedly. One thing it all means currently is that the options you describe are never on sale new, only ever the base models. It leaves us higher spec folks all waiting for refurb 6-9 months down the line for a deal, when the config you’re after finally appears on refurb store.

Actually I don’t have a problem with Airs having 8gb and 256. For a simple, cheap, capable computer, that is great. But 256 is small for a desktop, where you are likely working on files, or have photos and music to store. One can always go external, I guess? Some people will always prefer that option - go base, then external for more, and cheaper.

I think it’s with the Pro products where this argument makes the most sense. But it’s not uniform, for instance, the Max starting with 32GB as base is fantastic, but to me 512 is too small these days and 1TB should be starting capacity.

What would be great would be if a model such as this was a base model, but a user could spec down their machine if they wanted, to save money as a BTO. But that’s pie in the sky, I guess.

The options are highly strategic as to force upgrades, I think that’s where the OP’s value proposition sticks most - because BTO offerings can only ever found at sale prices on refurb.

The current small SSD speed thing sucks, because even if u only needed a small drive, and weren’t worried about cash, u get punished for it.

 

[3448322]

BTO Minis aren't available from the stores until late February. That's friction. Hell, from a sales perspective, "come back tomorrow" is friction.

And yet the example I gave isn't BTO. The 512gb 8gb mini is a stock config, retailers should have it, in stock. Yet it is 33% more expensive than the 256gb 8gb base model, the only difference being an extra 256gb NAND. It's obvious Apple's margins are MUCH higher on the 512gb model. R&D costs are the same, distribution costs are the same, everything in the machine is the same, the only difference is that extra NAND added at the factory.

You're going to have to flesh out the math on this for me, because it sounds like a conspiracy theory driven by a hundred year old lightbulb pact. Work through the product line and explain why this is more sane than the textbook product marketing approach I've been describing.

You can't explain things to people who don't want to understand. I doubt Apple is making buyers of higher configs subsidize buyers of the base model to increase market share etc, they're selling the base model at a profit too. My whole point was that margins (not merely prices) are higher on higher configs, which is undoubtedly true, and if they are paying more it's because they're getting something more than those extra bits of NAND, something buyers of the base model are not getting. I assume that to be longer expected service life. On the other end, grannies for whom 256gb are plenty also don't need an M2 chip or superfast thunderbolt ports, so why are they paying for that?

What you call marketing I call a subpar pricing structure on a subpar lineup of configs that only exist because the wrong incentives are allowed to remain in this industry, specifically, but not only, the incentive to make devices less durable.

 

[smirking]

You can't explain things to people who don't want to understand.

Well, since you're so gracious to explain how things work to those of us who can't understand these things that come easily to you, could you at least fill us in on what exactly your qualifications are?

 

[bcortens]

Not sure how you can make this argument as Apple does not use any shelf components. Their RAM modules are fully custom orders which have extremely low power consumption compared to publicly advertised LPDDR5 chips (and they have like 2x more connector pins). Nothing is known about the SSD Apple uses either as the serial numbers are not described in any public catalogues. What we do know that Apple SSDs have advanced resilience features (data flush on power loss) and there is indirect evidence that their endurance is higher than that of openly sold consumer SSDs.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully agree that Apple upgrade prices are very high and likely not based on component costs. The $200 per tier model is something Apple has introduced a long time ago, and it’s still this high because the consumers are apparently willing to pay these prices. I also agree that Apple could change the model and still make a decent profit (although their revenue would suffer). But we can’t really speculate on the margins for these components. Because it’s not standard tech.

While I generally agree that Apple uses higher end components than those you can get off the shelf. That is why I chose higher capacities for the Flash Storage and the Memory when I did the comparison. You can get 8x as much flash ($199 for 2TB at time of checking) storage for what Apple charges (Apple charges $200 for 256 GB) and despite the extra features I doubt Apple pays 8x what everyone else does.

For memory the prices are a lot closer but the memory they use is also closer to standard LPDDR5X (X I think for the M2). While it is more expensive than off the shelf Laptop memory I again was showing that you can get 4x as much regular DDR5 (32 GB for $140 at time of checking) DDR5 laptop memory for less than Apple charges ($200 for 8 GB).

Even if we assume that Apple's memory is twice as expensive per GB they are still wildly overpriced. I doubt Apple's flash is twice as expensive though because that linked Samsung stick also has to include controller chip, the PCIE interface, the PCB and even a heatsink, that the higher capacity flash chip Apple would be buying does not add to the price of the existing Mac mini.

 

[PauloSera]

I don't think they need to double the base models at all. They are more than adequate for the people who actually buy base models.

But I think everyone can universally agree that what Apple charges for BTO models is egregious. Instead of doubling base models, they need to cut in half their fees for RAM and storage upgrades.

 

[bcortens]

I don't think they need to double the base models at all. They are more than adequate for the people who actually buy base models.

But I think everyone can universally agree that what Apple charges for BTO models is egregious. Instead of doubling base models, they need to cut in half their fees for RAM and storage upgrades.

The reason they should upgrade the base models is because they should always strive to offer products that get better over all dimensions over time. I don't like that in the Tim Cook era the base models have basically abandoned getting better in the storage and memory configuration. If I buy the base model today and in 5 years I shouldn't get the same amount of storage. The average time for memory and storage upgrades in the Tim era is 7 years... that is absurd.

 

[PauloSera]

The reason they should upgrade the base models is because they should always strive to offer products that get better over all dimensions over time. I don't like that in the Tim Cook era the base models have basically abandoned getting better in the storage and memory configuration. If I buy the base model today and in 5 years I shouldn't get the same amount of storage. The average time for memory and storage upgrades in the Tim era is 7 years... that is absurd.

The base models are fine for a huge percentage of buyers. Why should they be giving away more than that?

This is always the argument: "Whatever I would buy is what the base model should be...so I can buy base models".

No.

 

[3448322]

Well, since you're so gracious to explain how things work to those of us who can't understand these things that come easily to you, could you at least fill us in on what exactly your qualifications are?

How about this as food for thought: your life is in many ways ruled by people whose no1 qualification for their position is that they are less scrupulous than you are, or at least not so naive.

As for myself, I don't decide how you live your life, so even though I do have some (formal) qualifications to opine on a narrow number of issues, including this one, they're not relevant to you.

 

[bcortens]

The base models are fine for a huge percentage of buyers. Why should they be giving away more than that?

This is always the argument: "Whatever I would buy is what the base model should be...so I can buy base models".

No.

This logic of (it's fine for X percentage of buyers) is what ends progress. By this logic the base model should be a 2012 Mac mini with an SSD instead of an HDD because that would be fine for a large percentage of buyers.

Additionally there was a time when the base model offered 1TB of storage, so if someone bought a base model Mac prior to the flash storage transition then after they would have to be explained to as to why they now had to pay $400 extra just to get the storage from their old Mac... We shouldn't use the flash storage transition as an excuse forever. I expected and was fine with the flash storage transition setting us back, but the fact that it set us back and then locked us in place is what irks me.

So, No...

 

[PauloSera]

This logic of (it's fine for X percentage of buyers) is what ends progress. By this logic the base model should be a 2012 Mac mini with an SSD instead of an HDD because that would be fine for a large percentage of buyers.

Additionally there was a time when the base model offered 1TB of storage, so if someone bought a base model Mac prior to the flash storage transition then after they would have to be explained to as to why they now had to pay $400 extra just to get the storage from their old Mac... We shouldn't use the flash storage transition as an excuse forever. I expected and was fine with the flash storage transition setting us back, but the fact that it set us back and then locked us in place is what irks me.

So, No...

Yeah let's have the $1099 MacBook Air with 1 TB SSD and 16 GB of RAM. Sounds totally realistic, and necessary. My father in law will use about 100 GB of that space, tops. If that.

No.

 

[Analog Kid]

And yet the example I gave isn't BTO. The 512gb 8gb mini is a stock config, retailers should have it, in stock. Yet it is 33% more expensive than the 256gb 8gb base model, the only difference being an extra 256gb NAND. It's obvious Apple's margins are MUCH higher on the 512gb model. R&D costs are the same, distribution costs are the same, everything in the machine is the same, the only difference is that extra NAND added at the factory.

You'll also notice that your comment isn't the one I was responding to.

I agree with you that everything in the machine is the same except for the RAM/Flash and that the price of upgrading likely exceeds the cost of those components alone.

Remember, margin decisions are made for the product line, not a single product alone. Apple doesn’t say “let’s set the margin on the base model and see what we can squeeze from the suckers”, they say “based on decades of sales data we expect a particular mix of sales, and need this margin to justify the product line, so we recommend this pricing model to achieve those aims”.

CostOfMac=CostOfSystem+CostOfStorage

So, if the margin is higher on the higher cost products, and lower on the lower cost products and the difference between the them is more than than the difference in the CostOfStorage, then the discount is on the System.

You can't explain things to people who don't want to understand.

Yeah, I've been finding that too...

I doubt Apple is making buyers of higher configs subsidize buyers of the base model to increase market share etc, they're selling the base model at a profit too.

Subsidies don’t imply selling at a loss…. It implies a transfer among funding sources to make something more affordable.

My whole point was that margins (not merely prices) are higher on higher configs, which is undoubtedly true, and if they are paying more it's because they're getting something more than those extra bits of NAND, something buyers of the base model are not getting. I assume that to be longer expected service life. On the other end, grannies for whom 256gb are plenty also don't need an M2 chip or superfast thunderbolt ports, so why are they paying for that?

Thanks for fleshing that out a bit further. That helps me understand your thinking, at least. I still disagree with your take, though.

What I think the buyers of higher end machines are getting by paying more is a machine more capable of satisfying their higher end needs.

Remember: pricing is set at the level a customer is willing to pay and the company is willing to accept. A customer is willing to pay a price at which they value the product more than the money. At the higher priced end of the lineup customers either value the product more (eg. they can earn more from their business by using it, have a hobby they particularly enjoy, or find status in the item) or the money less (eg. they're wealthy enough they automatically buy up market because it saves them effort evaluating different products or it makes them feel good to spend it). At the lower priced end, they either value the product less (eg. all I need is something to browse the web, write a term paper on, or access my companies online accounting tools) or the money more (eg. they'd like the fancier one but also need to replace their refrigerator this year and can't afford both).

As far as why grannies are paying for an M2 chip they don't really need: they aren't. As you and I agreed above, those buying the base model aren't paying as much for it. Think of the discount as compensating for the parts they aren't using. Apple could add an M2 Gimp to the lineup below the M2 but they've probably done the math and decided it's not worth the added production and support cost and better for the product as a whole if people running Safari, Chrome, Excel and Word get the best single threaded performance they can.

Very often when a company does offer a gimped version of a system chip, it's actually the same basic device as a higher end component to maintain economies of scale but limited either by software or hardware (maybe by disabling functions on the die itself) to force the market segmentation. Apple chose not to play that game, and gives the full performance component and differentiates solely by storage.

What you call marketing I call a subpar pricing structure on a subpar lineup of configs that only exist because the wrong incentives are allowed to remain in this industry, specifically, but not only, the incentive to make devices less durable.

Your pricing theory relies on the assumption that the customer is an idiot and that Apple is conniving but naive. I don't believe that's generally true. I think the typical customer is quite aware of their needs. I think Apple is quite aware of the reputational damage that would come from selling people products that don't live as long as those customers expect and the fact there are other companies out there ready to take those customers if Apple disappoints them. If you take out the assumption that everyone but us is a fool, then your theory gets pretty weak.

 

[bcortens]

Yeah let's have the $1099 MacBook Air with 1 TB SSD and 16 GB of RAM. Sounds totally realistic, and necessary. My father in law will use about 100 GB of that space, tops. If that.

No.

Again, why did Apple give people 500GB of storage on the HDD of the $1199 13" MacBook Pro in 2012? If it wasn't necessary they could have saved a buck and offered less. Why did HDD capacities increase every 2 years reaching 1TB on some base models when Jobs died? If 1TB is necessary surely they should have used a smaller amount.

Again, you didn't answer my question about the 2012 Mac mini. So here's another, why offer a MacBook Air with M1 as the base model, let's offer an A12 MacBook Air for people at the starting price of $1099 after all its all people like your father in law really needs.

I don't accept that Apple should just give people the bare minimum at the base model, I don't accept that we should continue to view an Apple that never upgrades base storage and memory as one that is really producing products with the best balance of price and capability.

 

[PauloSera]

Again, why did Apple give people 500GB of storage on the HDD of the $1199 13" MacBook Pro in 2012? If it wasn't necessary they could have saved a buck and offered less. Why did HDD capacities increase every 2 years reaching 1TB on some base models when Jobs died? If 1TB is necessary surely they should have used a smaller amount.

Again, you didn't answer my question about the 2012 Mac mini. So here's another, why offer a MacBook Air with M1 as the base model, let's offer an A12 MacBook Air for people at the starting price of $1099 after all its all people like your father in law really needs.

I don't accept that Apple should just give people the bare minimum at the base model, I don't accept that we should continue to view an Apple that never upgrades base storage and memory as one that is really producing products with the best balance of price and capability.

You're comparing HDD to SSD without a single acknowledgement of that. HDD's themselves performed terribly at lower capacities. Only the higher capacity models were fast enough to be acceptable. They also became very cheap to offer.

You "don't accept" anything because you don't understand even the basics of this conversation.

 

[boss.king]

Again, why did Apple give people 500GB of storage on the HDD of the $1199 13" MacBook Pro in 2012? If it wasn't necessary they could have saved a buck and offered less. Why did HDD capacities increase every 2 years reaching 1TB on some base models when Jobs died? If 1TB is necessary surely they should have used a smaller amount.

Again, you didn't answer my question about the 2012 Mac mini. So here's another, why offer a MacBook Air with M1 as the base model, let's offer an A12 MacBook Air for people at the starting price of $1099 after all its all people like your father in law really needs.

I don't accept that Apple should just give people the bare minimum at the base model, I don't accept that we should continue to view an Apple that never upgrades base storage and memory as one that is really producing products with the best balance of price and capability.

People were using computers differently back then. Streaming media wasn’t as widespread, so people were filling their hard drives with music and movies and photos. Most people don’t do that now, they stream things and store photos in the cloud, freeing up a lot of their storage. That means they can get by fine with a smaller drive.

You continue to only look at the raw storage numbers and ignore every other factor that might play a role in the evolution of these product lines.

 

[Analog Kid]

they should always strive to offer products that get better over all dimensions over time.

No, they should always strive to better allocate their resources to better meet customer needs.

 

[bcortens]

People were using computers differently back then. Streaming media wasn’t as widespread, so people were filling their hard drives with music and movies and photos. Most people don’t do that now, they stream things and store photos in the cloud, freeing up a lot of their storage. That means they can get by fine with a smaller drive.

You continue to only look at the raw storage numbers and ignore every other factor that might play a role in the evolution of these product lines.

I am not ignoring it, during the era when storage was growing everything else also got better. That is a constant, if anything the rate of improvement for everything else (CPU/GPU) in the Jobs era was closer to the improvement we saw with the Intel -> Apple Silicon transition than the rest of the Tim era.

If the rate of change for performance during the Jobs era was equivalent to the modern era then that isn't a variable factor, it is a constant, so it doesn't need to be taken into account when running the comparison.


Edit: Games require huge amounts of storage. Suppose you say, people don't game on Mac, it's hard to game on a Mac when even a game that works well (world of warcraft) eats 1/4 of your storage space. Are these computers not intended to be bought for people going off to university/college, do those people not have down time to play games?

Almost everything is still best stored locally, especially in North America where ISPs suck. The Finder works way way better with local files than iCloud files.

No, they should always strive to better allocate their resources to better meet customer needs.

So again, shouldn't they sell an A12 base model? (No, lets pick an A series they still sell, so lets say an A14 instead)

 

[bcortens]

You're comparing HDD to SSD without a single acknowledgement of that. HDD's themselves performed terribly at lower capacities. Only the higher capacity models were fast enough to be acceptable. They also became very cheap to offer.

You "don't accept" anything because you don't understand even the basics of this conversation.

.... did you not read my post? I said, right in the post, that I would expect the storage to reset back to lower capacities with the flash transition ...

You, and others, keep making the argument that people don't need these things, I have pointed out repeatedly that technically the average user doesn't need anything close to an M1, so why not just offer a cut down A series chip with a single high performance core and a couple of high efficiency cores. If your argument is about what people need then we end up arguing for the bare bare minimum.

 

[PauloSera]

You, and others, keep making the argument that people don't need these things, I have pointed out repeatedly that technically the average user doesn't need anything close to an M1, so why not just offer a cut down A series chip with a single high performance core and a couple of high efficiency cores.

Because its not only about what people need, its about value. There is a minimum threshold to what Apple can include for $1000 laptop.

The fact that you need this explained to you says a lot, quite honestly.

 

[bcortens]

Because its not only about what people need, its about value. There is a minimum threshold to what Apple can include for $1000 laptop.

The fact that you need this explained to you says a lot, quite honestly.

Your lines about what is appropriate value are arbitrary (and mine are too to be clear).

The minimum threshold for a $1000 machine being the M1 is only because that is where Apple set it when the transition began.

We would be having the exact same argument if they had set that threshold at the A14 when they began the transition. There is nothing about an A14 $1000 MacBook Air that would inherently be below this minimum value threshold you have created. It would have still offered much better single and multicore performance than the intel machine it replaced. Up until recently the minimum threshold for storage was 128 GB, why is the minimum now 256 GB? When they offered 128 was that an unacceptable amount that we should have been constantly castigating them for?

Edit: While it's hard to find exact numbers some checking on GFX Bench (Ignore the top result its an aberration) and barefeats suggests that the mythical A14 MacBook Air would be substantially faster in GPU than the intel 2018 MacBook Air as well.

 

[PauloSera]

Your lines about what is appropriate value are arbitrary (and mine are too to be clear).

The minimum threshold for a $1000 machine being the M1 is only because that is where Apple set it when the transition began.

We would be having the exact same argument if they had set that threshold at the A14 when they began the transition. There is nothing about an A14 $1000 MacBook Air that would inherently be below this minimum value threshold you have created. It would have still offered much better single and multicore performance than the intel machine it replaced. Up until recently the minimum threshold for storage was 128 GB, why is the minimum now 256 GB? When they offered 128 was that an unacceptable amount that we should have been constantly castigating them for?

Edit: While it's hard to find exact numbers some checking on GFX Bench (Ignore the top result its an aberration) and barefeats suggests that the mythical A14 MacBook Air would be substantially faster in GPU than the intel 2018 MacBook Air as well.

I've totally lost interest in everything you have to say.

 

[boss.king]

I am not ignoring it, during the era when storage was growing everything else also got better. That is a constant, if anything the rate of improvement for everything else (CPU/GPU) in the Jobs era was closer to the improvement we saw with the Intel -> Apple Silicon transition than the rest of the Tim era.

If the rate of change for performance during the Jobs era was equivalent to the modern era then that isn't a variable factor, it is a constant, so it doesn't need to be taken into account when running the comparison.

CPU and GPU performance upgrades slowing down was not Apple's fault. Intel and AMD weren't delivering the goods.But again, those aren't the only factors. Ram and storage speed, display quality, battery life, design, build quality, etc, are all things that count towards the value of a machine. A computer is more than just the amount of ram and storage it has.

Again, I agree that Apple charges too much for its ram and storage upgrades, but I don't agree that the 8/256 config is unreasonable for the price, or an unreasonable config for a base model.

Edit: Games require huge amounts of storage. Suppose you say, people don't game on Mac, it's hard to game on a Mac when even a game that works well (world of warcraft) eats 1/4 of your storage space. Are these computers not intended to be bought for people going off to university/college, do those people not have down time to play games?

Almost everything is still best stored locally, especially in North America where ISPs suck. The Finder works way way better with local files than iCloud files.

Most people don't play games on their Macs. Most games aren't even available on Macs. But if you did plan to game on a Mac, then don't buy the base model.

I bought a Mac with a larger drive because I intend on keeping a lot of music and photos locally. I don't stream music.

I bought extra ram too, because I intend to use my machine for Blender and the Adobe suite and maybe learning to code and develop an app.

I bought more than the base specs because I acknowledge that my habits and needs are different to the average user. I'm the outlier on the graph, so I need to configure the machine to fit my needs.

So again, shouldn't they sell an A12 base model? (No, lets pick an A series they still sell, so lets say an A14 instead)

Why? What benefit do you think that's going to bring? Because it sure as hell isn't going to make things cheaper.

It adds confusion for customers. It adds complexity for manufacturing. It adds complexity and compatibility issues for devs, and it gives those machines a shorter effective lifespan because the chips are not as powerful. You've taken the issue of machines not being specced high enough and your solution is "What if I specced them waaay worse instead?"

 

[bcortens]

CPU and GPU performance upgrades slowing down was not Apple's fault. Intel and AMD weren't delivering the goods.But again, those aren't the only factors. Ram and storage speed, display quality, battery life, design, build quality, etc, are all things that count towards the value of a machine. A computer is more than just the amount of ram and storage it has.

Again, I agree that Apple charges too much for its ram and storage upgrades, but I don't agree that the 8/256 config is unreasonable for the price, or an unreasonable config for a base model.


Most people don't play games on their Macs. Most games aren't even available on Macs. But if you did plan to game on a Mac, then don't buy the base model.

I bought a Mac with a larger drive because I intend on keeping a lot of music and photos locally. I don't stream music.

I bought extra ram too, because I intend to use my machine for Blender and the Adobe suite and maybe learning to code and develop an app.

I bought more than the base specs because I acknowledge that my habits and needs are different to the average user. I'm the outlier on the graph, so I need to configure the machine to fit my needs.


Why? What benefit do you think that's going to bring? Because it sure as hell isn't going to make things cheaper.

It's not about making things cheaper, Apple decides what the base product should be, and as I added in my response to PauloSera above, I should have said A14 instead. My point about the A series is that if your point is that Apple should offer the minimum that is acceptable at the bottom of the line they shouldn't even be including an M series chip. They could easily offer the A series instead.

I have a larger drive myself as well, even if 16/512 was the base model I would still be buying a higher end config, this isn't about what I need or want. My complaint is a philosophical one about the way Apple has chosen to stagnate on storage and memory in the last 12 years.

Yes everything else gets better, but if the idea is that Apple should push things to the point where they are good enough then stop for all time then my counter is that then they should offer something like an A series chip at the entry level of the line. They can just keep upgrading to the latest A series and that would get the better single threaded performance that is relevant for web page loading.
People who need more could choose more, just as they do for memory and storage, and Apple could further build up their margins on BTO and higher end configs. Practices that people in this thread seem willing to defend.

The idea that an M series chip is some sort of baseline of performance and that of course they can't offer an A series is just as philosophically groundless as my own position. It's just preference about the kind of products we think Apple should offer. I think they should have kept offering more storage and memory.

 

[boss.king]

It's not about making things cheaper, Apple decides what the base product should be, and as I added in my response to PauloSera above, I should have said A14 instead. My point about the A series is that if your point is that Apple should offer the minimum that is acceptable at the bottom of the line they shouldn't even be including an M series chip. They could easily offer the A series instead.

They could, but it would make no sense and save no money. They'd be offering a worse machine with no benefit to customers or themselves or developers, and it would come with massive headaches for all. It makes me think you don't really understand what you're talking about.

I have a larger drive myself as well, even if 16/512 was the base model I would still be buying a higher end config, this isn't about what I need or want. My complaint is a philosophical one about the way Apple has chosen to stagnate on storage and memory in the last 12 years.

But they haven't stagnated. Most OEMs offer 8/256 as their base config in product lines competing with Apple's 8/256 machines, and they're often worse overall computers at that. They just don't usually charge as much as Apple does for upgrades. This is the industry standard, and it's set there because it's the config most people opt for. If it were really that unusable, no one would be buying it.

Yes everything else gets better, but if the idea is that Apple should push things to the point where they are good enough then stop for all time then my counter is that then they should offer something like an A series chip at the entry level of the line. They can just keep upgrading to the latest A series and that would get the better single threaded performance that is relevant for web page loading.
People who need more could choose more, just as they do for memory and storage, and Apple could further build up their margins on BTO and higher end configs. Practices that people in this thread seem willing to defend.
The idea that an M series chip is some sort of baseline of performance and that of course they can't offer an A series is just as philosophically groundless as my own position. It's just preference about the kind of products we think Apple should offer. I think they should have kept offering more storage and memory.

The M-chip is the baseline because they made it the baseline. They modified MacOS to take advantage of all the custom chips they added to it and decided that this provided a level of performance they were happy with in laptops and desktops. It's not some clandestine decision to force people to overprovision on CPU and GPU power, it's a way to simplify their product and manufacturing lines while starting with a platform that has room for expansion (see Mx Pro, Max, Ultra, possibly Extreme)

The idea that an A-chip would fix any of your issues is absurd. I don't really get how you think arguing for a worse SoC makes any sense.