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

[bcortens]

It isn’t.
The upgrade prices are half of what Apple is charging as far as i remember though

It is true that prices have been halving over the 3-5 year span for off the shelf parts.
You can just Google historical data trends.
I've said that the rate has slowed from every 2 years to more like the 3-5 year rate, but it doesn't change the fact that you can easily look this stuff up.

Edit: If you look at this analysis we can see that the 2010 onwards analysis is a doubling rate of 15% which averages to a 4.9 year doubling time. Which means, that since 2010 we would have expected memory capacity to double twice with the next doubling around 2025. It only doubled once, so we should have 16 GB with 32 GB coming in 2025 (if the trend doesn't continue to slow).

Edit 2 for Storage: Storage price history we see doubling every 3-4 years
2022 - 2TB ~ $100 ± 10
2019/2020 - 1TB ~ $100 ± 10
2016/2017 - 480 GB ~ $100 ± 10

 

[neuropsychguy]

See my post I just did this exercise….

I saw that after my post. I trot out margins many times when people say Apple's products should only cost X amount without first understanding Apple's margins on products.

 

[apparatchik]

That may be true but aftermarket prices for storage at least have been halving at about the 3 year rate ...

For memory I can find a few sources - but here is a hard to read table ...
Table

If we take the 4 year span for memory:
2x8 in 2018 was about $100 ± 15
2x16 in 2022 was about $100 ± 15

Edit: it looks like memory in 2014 for 2x4 GB was about $70 ± 10
So memory didn't quite double in capacity for the same price in 4 years however I would argue that inflation adjusted doubling is still pretty close...

Apple could have cheaper prices for RAM and storage upgrades sure, but that has never been the case and it's not the case with other OEM's, as someone else mentioned 16GB/512GB is not the baseline either with Dell, HP, etc.

I'm writing this on a 2018 MBA with 128GB of storage and 8 GB of RAM by the way, I have 20GB free space, and I'm eyeing a base M2 Mac Mini as an upgrade. Sure, 256GB might be insufficient for some, for me it will be double of what I currently have.

Show me a comparable system to the base Mac Mini (performance, warranty/support from a known manufacturer) with 16GB/512GB for $500.

 

[bcortens]

Apple could have cheaper prices for RAM and storage upgrades sure, but that has never been the case and it's not the case with other OEM's, as someone else mentioned 16GB/512GB is not the baseline either with Dell, HP, etc.

I'm writing this on a 2018 MBA with 128GB of storage and 8 GB of RAM by the way, I have 20GB free space, and I'm eyeing a base M2 Mac Mini as an upgrade. Sure, 256GB might be insufficient for some, for me it will be double of what I currently have.

Show me a comparable system to the base Mac Mini (performance, warranty/support from a known manufacturer) with 16GB/512GB for $500.

I said, somewhere else, that the Mac mini shouldn't have had a price drop, it should have stayed at the $699 price point and shipped with 16GB/512GB.

The fact that storage stagnated means we suddenly are all used to not seeing increases at a regular rate, this is not something that is preordained in nature or based on the price of the components but is instead a business decision.

I swear people don't google before they make claims.

Most companies don't really compete with the Mac mini but lets look at the MBA instead which is easier to find comparison products.
Dell Notebook $1199 for 32GB 2 TB
Dell Desktop $749 for 16GB 512 GB ($250 less than Apple charges for this config)
Dell Desktop $639 for 12GB 512 GB (only 12GB Memory but very close in price to the Mac mini)

I think the base 8GB memory is more forgivable than the base 256 GB storage...

 

[bcortens]

I saw that after my post. I trot out margins many times when people say Apple's products should only cost X amount without first understanding Apple's margins on products.

Didn't I go through the margin calculation? If we assumed the base Mac mini had a 38% margin and that the retail prices were the same prices apple paid I showed that apple is overcharging for the 16GB 512GB by at least $150 taking into account the need to keep 38% margin...

 

[robbietop]

Anyone defending Apple over this topic must be drinking some pretty heavy kool-aid.

I mean, they released the 12" Macbook in 2015 with 8/256 and Retina screen.
Today you can buy an almost identical M2 Air (with a chip that is probably costing them less money than Intel's) at roughly the same price (in Europe it's actually more expensive than the 12" Macbook was at launch, 1499 eu vs 1449 eu).
8 years later!!! How insane is that?

There is no excuse for the base models not having 16GB of RAM and/or 512 GB of storage, especially with the atrocious upgrade pricing. Their entire strategy is consumer hostile at this point.

It's not about defending. It's about reminding people that although you can dress a horse up, it ain't a unicorn. Sure, I'd love it, as well. But a company has to eat, and Apple is a hungry hippo

 

[Analog Kid]

I actually have always felt that Apple should be a relatively high margin company to ensure they can maintain the business but also to give them enough capital to do cool things like buy Intrinsity and PASemi.

Most people arguing that the base storage should be increased are really saying that Apple should lower their prices-- they want more storage but they expect the base price to be the same. That leads to a different discussion about how companies aren't charities and why profit maximization is important to resource allocation in a society. You're saying that's not what you mean, so I'll try to take you at your word on that.

What you keep ignoring is that while Apple has always segmented products by storage they used to at least upgrade the base storage and memory every 2 years. I’m willing to say that things stagnated generally in the 2010s but they should still have been upgrading these things every 4 years at least given the way the prices have dropped over time. The iPod didn’t stay at 5GB for 7 years. The iPod Mini didn’t stay at 4 GB for 7 years, the baseline improved all while Apple continued to segment based on storage.

Why? Do you think point of sale machines and living room websurfing machines need all that? Remember, this is the base model, the one below which no one can buy. People who need more can still buy more, but people who need less must still buy the base amount. To say that the base storage should keep increasing means that there is no market for anything smaller.

Here is where you’re out to lunch, the base cost of the machine would not go to $1100 if you doubled storage and RAM. How do I know?
Let’s assume 38% margin on the Mac mini - at $599 that’s a $371 BOM.
Let’s assume retail prices for flash (Samsung 512 GB M2) - $199 when I checked - so then apple needs to pay about $100 for an additional 256 GB (Apple would actually pay less but hey lets be conservative).
Let’s take a 32 GB stick of DDR5 (Crucial 32 GB Memory) - $122 when I checked - so lets say Apple uses super super expensive memory and we’ll say that for apple to add an additional 8 GB costs as much as this 32GB stick.

So we have $371 + $220 = $591 + 38% margin = $870

And that is being extremely conservative on the prices and giving a huge buffer to Apple.
To get that from Apple today charges you $999 over $100 more.

Again, I was being conservative by giving Apple the benefit of the margins that Samsung and Crucial are getting, I chose 32GB DDR5 instead of 8 GB to give them even more of a benefit of the doubt.
There is just no way the machine you suggest is $1100.

If we take $599 in 2010 money multiply by 1.34 % for inflation we get $820… interesting that it almost matches up to my suggestion.
I prefer Apple differentiate with storage and memory but they shouldn’t be waiting 7+ years to raise the baselines.
I also would prefer a higher starting price with better features if Apple actually kept moving forward.

You completely missed the point. You are still fixated on passing costs through to customers and I tried to demonstrate to you how it doesn't work that way.

People (and companies) pay what a product is worth to them, not what it costs to make. Apple has found that storage is well correlated to over all customer value. People who don't value the machine as much tend to demand less storage, people who value the machine a lot demand more storage.

I buy the higher storage products too, but I resent the fact that they don’t change the baseline any more. I think that they should raise the baseline and increase the price a small amount to account for inflation rather than trying to keep everything the same price for decades even if it means selling hardware that I don’t think many people should buy.

I don't care what Apple does with products I don't buy, and I don't try to decide what other people need. Apple sells a product I want at a price I'm willing to pay, so I buy that. If they didn't, I wouldn't. I'm humble enough to assume people know their needs and Apple knows their market better than I do.

 

[Analog Kid]

Edit: I don't think it is some evil machination to lower performance. I think it is penny pinching to force consumers to buy their overpriced storage upgrades.

You keep starting from the bottom and assuming the increased storage is at inflated prices. I'm telling you that you need to start in the middle (as weighed by sales) and understand that everything but the storage is being discounted as you decrease storage. Apple is getting lower margins on their lower priced machines and the cost of storage components to Apple is not the reason for that.

Edit 2: It really does look like Tim Cook era apple only offers upgraded storage when they can no longer physically buy the modules needed to offer smaller sizes... pretty pathetic really.

You may have cause and effect reversed. Manufacturers may stop making the modules when they no longer have a customer as big as Apple consuming them.

 

[bcortens]

People (and companies) pay what a product is worth to them, not what it costs to make. Apple has found that storage is well correlated to over all customer value. People who don't value the machine as much tend to demand less storage, people who value the machine a lot demand more storage.

You overestimate peoples willingness to buy the higher storage tiers if they think they might get away with it. Apple's inflated prices for storage do have real world impacts. People to try and get by with lower capacities than they should because they either don't want to pay for apple's inflated prices or because they just get the base model off the shelf in store.

People valuing of the machines has nothing to do with it. The base model should be aimed at people who don't know how or can't do a lot of research to figure out what they need. They probably went in to get a new machine to replace the one they've had for 5+ years and if they don't know better they come out with one with the exact same storage as the one they started with (which is probably almost full).

 

[bcortens]

You keep starting from the bottom and assuming the increased storage is at inflated prices. I'm telling you that you need to start in the middle (as weighed by sales) and understand that everything but the storage is being discounted as you decrease storage. Apple is getting lower margins on their lower priced machines and the cost of storage components to Apple is not the reason for that.

You may have cause and effect reversed. Manufacturers may stop making the modules when they no longer have a customer as big as Apple consuming them.

I am starting from the bottom because it makes no sense to recommend the 256GB machine to people who use them for more than email and web. If you want to store your photos, more than 256 GB, if you want to play any games at all, more than 256 GB, application bloat alone has lead to GB of space being used up. More and more people are living more and more of their lives on their computers and 256 GB is just too low in 2023. It was barely acceptable in 2013... now 10 years on we are still living with it...

 

[IconDRT]

If someone falls into the category of "people who don't know how or can't do a lot of research to figure out what they need" then the base configuration is sufficient. If they are such novices or inept at doing basic product information gathering, they likely don't need more storage or faster transfer rates than what Apple currently offers in the base configuration.

If you know you need more than the base storage, but choose to stick with the base configuration because you don't want to pay Apple's "inflated prices" that's your choice. For those unwilling to step up to the next storage tier, they can buy a PC for the same price (or less) that has the storage they actually need. Running macOS isn't a birthright, if you can't afford the Apple experience that includes sufficient compute and storage for your situation, there are other non-macOS options that are more "value for the money."

 

[bcortens]

If someone falls into the category of "people who don't know how or can't do a lot of research to figure out what they need" then the base configuration is sufficient. If they are such novices or inept at doing basic product information gathering, they likely don't need more storage or faster transfer rates than what Apple currently offers in the base configuration.

No it isn't. People take far far far more photos than they used to, apps are larger than they used to be, games are larger than they used to be. Users who aren't computer experts are the norm and consist of a vast swath of the public. They shouldn't have to understand that they should never buy Apple's base model.

If you know you need more than the base storage, but choose to stick with the base configuration because you don't want to pay Apple's "inflated prices" that's your choice. For those unwilling to step up to the next storage tier, they can buy a PC for the same price (or less) that has the storage they actually need. Running macOS isn't a birthright, if you can't afford the Apple experience that includes sufficient compute and storage for your situation, there are other non-macOS options that are more "value for the money."

I do, pay Apple's inflated prices, I just complain about them because that is my right. I am pointing out that Tim Cooks Apple cares more about segmentation penny pinching than having a product strategy that is good for the consumer. I have gone through and shown (with references to historic data prices and historic storage and memory trends) that the Tim Cook era has a fundamentally different character when it comes to expectations of the base model Macs. The expectation once was that if you upgraded every 5 years you'd get more storage and memory, that is no longer true. I would argue that the M1 with 16GB 512GB base would be better than the M2 8GB 256GB for most people because most people are going to be able to get by for longer with the M1 16GB 512 GB.

 

[boss.king]

To each his own, but the M1 Macbook Air is often available for around $800. Do you think your MBA has double the performance? It's ok that it doesn't - the M1 Macbook Air just happens to be an extremely good value right now - the best in Apple's lineup.

Is that $800 model the 16/512 config? Because if not, it’s not what I want (I’m also not in the US, so American deals aren’t much use to me). It also doesn’t have MagSafe, a feature I want.

The difference between the M1 and M2 Airs specced to my needs is 200USD. I think the extra $200 for a brighter display, a (subjectively) nicer design, MagSafe (i.e. an extra useable USB C port), a slightly better CPU and an extra GPU core is a fair tradeoff.

There’s value and then there’s compromising on your requirements for the sake of penny pinching.

 

[Analog Kid]

I do, pay Apple's inflated prices, I just complain about them because that is my right.

Ok, so this is just someone else complaining about price. I took you at your word that it was some deeper philosophical concern for the little people, but in the end it's about wanting more for less despite words saying you want Apple to keep their margins. All the feigned concern about the little people being led as sheep to slaughter is just a effort to look like you're appealing to higher principles than self interest.

I have gone through and shown (with references to historic data prices and historic storage and memory trends) that the Tim Cook era has a fundamentally different character when it comes to expectations of the base model Macs.

I don't think your argument shows what you think it does. I've tried to explain this to you and how to take a wholistic view of the product line so you can realize that the lower margins on the base model doesn't mean you're getting a deal on storage it means you're getting a deal on every other part of that Mac. That's what lower margin means, and the fact that prices scale more than the underlying cost of the storage means the discount is on the non-storage hardware.

But I'm pretty convinced now that you're not interested in seeing anything as it is, you want to be angry and want people to tell you you're justified in your anger.

The expectation once was that if you upgraded every 5 years you'd get more storage and memory, that is no longer true. I would argue that the M1 with 16GB 512GB base would be better than the M2 8GB 256GB for most people because most people are going to be able to get by for longer with the M1 16GB 512 GB.

And the expectation was also once that the underlying Intel processor barely improved and probably caused a lot more fan noise.

The good news is that Apple sells a 16GB/512GB model, so you don't need to worry about any of the others. If it's not worth it to you, don't buy it. It's really as simple as that. What I've been trying to explain to you though is that they're not going to sell that 16/512 machine much cheaper than they are now by killing the current base and charging storage upgrades at cost unless there really is massive demand for the current 8/256-- and if there is massive demand for the 8/256 then you're asking Apple to kill a product that people actually want.

 

[bcortens]

I don't think your argument shows what you think it does. I've tried to explain this to you and how to take a wholistic view of the product line so you can realize that the lower margins on the base model doesn't mean you're getting a deal on storage it means you're getting a deal on every other part of that Mac. That's what lower margin means, and the fact that prices scale more than the underlying cost of the storage means the discount is on the non-storage hardware.

But I'm pretty convinced now that you're not interested in seeing anything as it is, you want to be angry and want people to tell you you're justified in your anger.

You have ignored my posts that point out that it wasn't always this way and that is a key part of my complaint.
I keep trying to make the point that we used to see regular improvements to these things, if you say, well the pace has slowed down you shouldn't expect improvements every 2 years anymore, so I went out and tried to figure out the timelines we should expect and came up with 3-5 years which also doesn't reflect reality.

It doesn't matter that we are getting a deal on the rest of the Mac. My point is that we used to see regular improvements to the storage and memory in the base models and that the pace of improvements has not just slowed but virtually stopped.

 

[leman]

This entire conversation starts to take a very strange turn. We are now down to platitudes like „customers want to spend as little as possible“ and „companies want to charge as much as possible“.

@bcortens Price formation is based on perceived value, not the price of manufacture. Apple is charging its $200 per tier because people are willing to pay it. It doesn’t matter if the actual component only costs $50 or $5, or whether you believe this is not fair or not nice. As a business, it is stupid to charge less than a customer is willing to pay. This is the unfortunate reality of capitalism and also the reason why we can have good things.

 

[theotherphil]

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.

Then you were never Apple's customer in the first place. But you gotta admit, you are envious of what's on this side of the fence or you wouldn't be here. It's like me looking at my neighbours Porsche Taycan and rationalising to myself that I can get better range from my Ford Ranger.

I love all these "here's what you could have bought" posts. The answer is usually: true, I could have bought that [insert shopping list of specs] PC but I wanted a Mac/ MacOS.

It doesn't matter how good value or how many gigawatts that PC has, I won't be buying it for a whole host of reasons. I was never a customer, or even a potential customer of Dell/ Alienware/ Asus/ [insert other brand name, selling gigawatt pc's].

I could have bought 5x of those company's laptops for what I paid for my MBP and I really don't care.

 

[bcortens]

This entire conversation starts to take a very strange turn. We are now down to platitudes like „customers want to spend as little as possible“ and „companies want to charge as much as possible“.

@bcortens Price formation is based on perceived value, not the price of manufacture. Apple is charging its $200 per tier because people are willing to pay it. It doesn’t matter if the actual component only costs $50 or $5, or whether you believe this is not fair or not nice. As a business, it is stupid to charge less than a customer is willing to pay. This is the unfortunate reality of capitalism and also the reason why we can have good things.

Whether or not people are willing to pay is irrelevant to me right now. My general point for the last little while is that modern Apple cares more about profit maximization than ensuring that every Mac they sell is good value.

Consider, in 2012 we had 1TB base storage on the iMac. They could have kept including 500GB, but they didn’t. If the person buying the base model in 2022 doesn‘t need 1TB why did the person in 2012 need it? After all its just being used by basic users who don’t have demanding needs, how can they possibly use 1TB why on earth was Apple offering that much storage when it was so much more than anyone ever needs… /sarcasm

Apple’s character has fundamentally changed when it comes to upgrading things over time. When people responding to me said that the cost per GB hasn’t changed I posted evidence that flash storage cost per GB has fallen such that we should have had 3 doubling of capacity based on price alone. Memory should have doubled twice based on prices. Suddenly its not about the cost to apple or margins its about the perceived value.

I maintain, and haven’t seen compelling evidence to the contrary, that Apple has chosen the path of profit maximization over what is better for the consumer. Further, based on past trends in the Jobs era that this is a fundamentally different prioritization.

We also see this in other ways when the old models stick around at their original price point and new models come in at a higher price point. It actually hurts them when they do this so much. The series 3 watch stuck around so long it hurt the developer ecosystem because they had to support that old slow model for years longer than necessary. The A8 Apple TV stuck around for far too long as well and unsuspecting customers bought a machine that stopped receiving software updates far sooner than those who bought the more expensive AppleTV 4K, despite them both sitting side by side on the shelf…

Edit:
To follow up on perceived value, it should be noted that by this logic Apple would be perfectly justified in never, ever, changing storage Or RAM because people are ‘willing to pay for it’.

 

[Scarrus]

I get the feeling that apart from the obvious fanboys there are also quite a bit of users here on behalf of Apple. Quite a few actually.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Finally Tim can retire. We've finally found Apple a new CEO!

lol apple killed the headphone jack to save fifteen cents per unit on the iPhone and drive sales of $300 headphones. They're not in the business of giving you more for less.

 

[apparatchik]

If someone falls into the category of "people who don't know how or can't do a lot of research to figure out what they need" then the base configuration is sufficient. If they are such novices or inept at doing basic product information gathering, they likely don't need more storage or faster transfer rates than what Apple currently offers in the base configuration.

If you know you need more than the base storage, but choose to stick with the base configuration because you don't want to pay Apple's "inflated prices" that's your choice. For those unwilling to step up to the next storage tier, they can buy a PC for the same price (or less) that has the storage they actually need. Running macOS isn't a birthright, if you can't afford the Apple experience that includes sufficient compute and storage for your situation, there are other non-macOS options that are more "value for the money."

Thing is, the value proposition in terms of performance, build quality, and warranty/support from Macs, beats any other system Windows or Linux, they're now beating them in price, is what I mean. It was reported way back when Macs were considered niche, premium and expensive products that in the long run, because they have less issues and have better quality, they end up being cheaper when considering maintenance and endurance compared to cheap PC's.

As you correctly mention, if you only care about internal storage, there might be cheaper options. For the people choosing a Mac, even the basic $500 Mini can do video and audio editing, play games, edit pictures, etc. And you can always hook up an external usb-c drive or SD card for added storage down the line.

 

[Analog Kid]

You have ignored my posts that point out that it wasn't always this way and that is a key part of my complaint.
I keep trying to make the point that we used to see regular improvements to these things, if you say, well the pace has slowed down you shouldn't expect improvements every 2 years anymore, so I went out and tried to figure out the timelines we should expect and came up with 3-5 years which also doesn't reflect reality.

It doesn't matter that we are getting a deal on the rest of the Mac. My point is that we used to see regular improvements to the storage and memory in the base models and that the pace of improvements has not just slowed but virtually stopped.

Ignored? No, I've pointed out that a Mac isn't an SSD with integrated computing and there have been plenty of improvements in the Mac as a whole. Saying base storage should double every 2 years would mean we should have base storage of 8TB right now. Picking a different rate of growth is arbitrary and also irrelevant as long as the maximum storage continues to improve-- it means there's a Mac you can buy with the storage you want.

I used to always buy the top end iPhone because I seemed to always be spending time managing space. Now I don't because the available storage exceeds my needs. Have you never heard the parable about rice on the chess board?

Why are you so up in arms about a Mac you don't want to buy?

 

[Jimmdean]

Is that $800 model the 16/512 config? Because if not, it’s not what I want (I’m also not in the US, so American deals aren’t much use to me). It also doesn’t have MagSafe, a feature I want.

The difference between the M1 and M2 Airs specced to my needs is 200USD. I think the extra $200 for a brighter display, a (subjectively) nicer design, MagSafe (i.e. an extra useable USB C port), a slightly better CPU and an extra GPU core is a fair tradeoff.

There’s value and then there’s compromising on your requirements for the sake of penny pinching.

I think the takeaway there is that you have to spec them to your needs at all. That's the gotcha with Apple : 8GB RAM = $200, 512GB storage = $200. Sometimes even 256GB storage = $200.

 

[Analog Kid]

Whether or not people are willing to pay is irrelevant to me right now. My general point for the last little while is that modern Apple cares more about profit maximization than ensuring that every Mac they sell is good value.

If I want to put a computer at the reception desk, then a $1400 2TB/6Gbps Mini is not a good value. I would like the $600 256GB version which will still be more storage than my 20GB OS install will ever need.

If I want to put a web surfer in my living room, or a client for my Plex server then the value judgement is the same.

I maintain, and haven’t seen compelling evidence to the contrary, that Apple has chosen the path of profit maximization over what is better for the consumer. Further, based on past trends in the Jobs era that this is a fundamentally different prioritization.

I showed you Job's relentless focus on increasing margins and that Cook actually tempered that after Job's death.

Edit:
To follow up on perceived value, it should be noted that by this logic Apple would be perfectly justified in never, ever, changing storage Or RAM because people are ‘willing to pay for it’.

That is 100% correct. If you have customers that want to buy something you would be perfectly justified in selling it.

 

[bcortens]

If I want to put a computer at the reception desk, then a $2000 2TB/6Gbps iMac is not a good value. I would like the $600 256GB version which will still be more storage than my 20GB OS install will ever need.

If I want to put a web surfer in my living room, or a client for my Plex server then the value judgement is the same.



I showed you Job's relentless focus on increasing margins and that Cook actually tempered that after Job's death.



That is 100% correct. If you have customers that want to buy something you're are perfectly justified in selling it.

By this logic you should buy the cheapest windows PC you can for your reception desk…

Sure, you can do a thing, doesn’t mean you should though. I think they shouldn’t because they should be aiming to provide a base model that continually improves in ways that are useful to users. If you were a user who bought the base mac every 5 years then during the Steve era you got double storage every 5 years to the point where you had 1TB base storage at one point. Now you have to pay $400 for that… and that is after we reset storage at 128 GB 10 years ago. If you ask the average person why they buy new computers one reason given was always storage. Since the Tim era arrived and storage very rarely increases Apple fans feel the need to defend this status quo as if, well the reset happened and now suddenly we realized that it was just perfect for users to have more than 256 GB at the base model.

Ignored? No, I've pointed out that a Mac isn't an SSD with integrated computing and there have been plenty of improvements in the Mac as a whole. Saying base storage should double every 2 years would mean we should have base storage of 8TB right now. Picking a different rate of growth is arbitrary and also irrelevant as long as the maximum storage continues to improve-- it means there's a Mac you can buy with the storage you want.

I used to always buy the top end iPhone because I seemed to always be spending time managing space. Now I don't because the available storage exceeds my needs. Have you never heard the parable about rice on the chess board?

Why are you so up in arms about a Mac you don't want to buy?

Under Steve, with a relentless focus on margin, we still got storage and memory upgrades every 2 years, in addition to updates to the rest of the system! Now, as I have said, they shouldn’t double every 2 years because the last 10 years have seen a slow down in doubling rates per dollar, it’s about 3 years for storage and 5 years for memory.

I care because I like seeing Apple move forward, seeing them move forward on some fronts and stagnate on others is annoying to me. And, as I have said repeatedly, I tell people to avoid the base model macs now, I didn’t used to have to do that… that is a change that is a result of the rarity of storage upgrades more than anything.