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

[Analog Kid]

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

I don't place as much value on Windows as I do on MacOS because I don't value things solely as the sum of component prices. This is the piece you still haven't gotten your head around.

That said, you may have noticed that I've never said "Windows shouldn't exist" ...

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

Ok, at this point, I really have to ask what you're doing that the only spec you care about is storage on the base model. You've repeated over and over again that you don't credit any other improvement as being useful to users...

 

[boss.king]

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.

I don't get your point. Yes, I'd love to pay less, every sane person feels that way, but what's the alternative? I just don't use a computer? I get a worse computer than I actually need and struggle to use it? I pay more to get the base model of a different, wildly overpowered machine?

Buying the wrong thing for your needs to save a buck isn't getting more value for your money, it's just being cheap for the sake of being cheap.

 

[bcortens]

I don't place as much value on Windows as I do on MacOS because I don't value things solely as the sum of component prices. This is the piece you still haven't gotten your head around.

That said, you may have noticed that I've never said "Windows shouldn't exist" ...

Ok, at this point, I really have to ask what you're doing that the only spec you care about is storage on the base model. You've repeated over and over again that you don't credit any other improvement as being useful to users...

Did you just skip the part of the sentence where I mentioned that other things also improved at the same time? I keep banging on about it because that’s the question of the thread! I keep banging on about it because it wasn’t always this way.

I care about storage and memory in this thread because I think that it is very important. As you and others have said, consumers value it and will pay for it. Apple exploits this by keeping the base model pretty anemic. This wasn’t always the case. I also care because I think that Apple shouldn’t get a pass for just not upgrading this spec for 7 years… I know things are better in other ways.

I keep repeating it because for your counter point to make sense you must think that it doesn’t matter if it improves or not… we should just accept that it might never change again and that it is not a disappointment that we can no longer count on the computer to improve in all ways, Apple has found consumers will pay for the storage they need so don’t expect that to ever change.

 

[Zaydax333]

I think a better way to approach this would be adjusting their prices.
Make 512GB the standard and then charge $100 for 8GB of ram and $100 for 512 GB of storage rather than the $200 per each of those they're charging right now.

 

[Analog Kid]

I keep repeating it because for your counter point to make sense you must think that it doesn’t matter if it improves or not… we should just accept that it might never change again and that it is not a disappointment that we can no longer count on the computer to improve in all ways, Apple has found consumers will pay for the storage they need so don’t expect that to ever change.

You're right, I don't think it matters if they change storage on the base model or not as long as there's a machine somewhere I want. If people are buying them then they serve a purpose.

I still dispute that the base model isn't improving over time.

 

[Jimmdean]

I don't get your point. Yes, I'd love to pay less, every sane person feels that way, but what's the alternative? I just don't use a computer? I get a worse computer than I actually need and struggle to use it? I pay more to get the base model of a different, wildly overpowered machine?

Buying the wrong thing for your needs to save a buck isn't getting more value for your money, it's just being cheap for the sake of being cheap.

point is people keep buying, so why should Apple change their ways? unfortunately the “right to repair“ people didn’t include “right to upgrade” as part of their ethos. then maybe memory and storage would be back under user control.

 

[boss.king]

point is people keep buying, so why should Apple change their ways? unfortunately the “right to repair“ people didn’t include “right to upgrade” as part of their ethos. then maybe memory and storage would be back under user control.

Yeah, people keep buying them because they’re good computers and people need computers. Your problem seems to be with the fundamentals of capitalism more that it is with Macs having small drives.

 

[nys]

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.

Erm, the thing is Apple don't want to be heroes. They want to be swimming in money.

 

[nys]

Per

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.

Knowing Apple.....there is no way in Hades that that is going to happen. Better to be swimming in a sea of money. Frankly, in the year 2023, Apple should at least be starting with 8GB and 512GB as the base model. And give people the option to upgrade the RAM. That way it is not a double step upgrading of RAM and SSD as is currently happening now. Even doing that, Apple would still be swimming in a sea of money. Sux big time when they don't do that.

 

[vmistery]

Personally I think the SSD capacities should be doubled across the board on Macs but I’m happy enough with the RAM being where it is as it is comparable to PCs. Alternatively they should allow again SSD upgrades or include a slot to add a second drive or make the BTO SSD upgrades sensibly priced as currently threy are totally bonkers.

 

[sam_dean]

Personally I think the SSD capacities should be doubled across the board on Macs but I’m happy enough with the RAM being where it is as it is comparable to PCs. Alternatively they should allow again SSD upgrades or include a slot to add a second drive or make the BTO SSD upgrades sensibly priced as currently threy are totally bonkers.

Or better yet charge an extra $100 for a m.2 slot without encryption.

4TB NVMe M.2 SSD 7.3GB/s read goes for less than $400. Get one that does 3.5GB/s read for less than $250

 

[laszlo182]

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.

sounds like lowering it by 100$ costs them more then

 

[magicMac]

I think the base m2 Mac mini / M2 MacBook Air / M2 iPad Pro are targeted for users who don’t ever load up a VM, have one display and generally have one app open at a time.

The M2 Pro chip in the higher Mac mini and MacBook Pro 14/16” has 16GB RAM by default and I this is targeted for users which need more RAM.

Don’t bother comparing the cost of the RAM and storage upgrades to the competition because it’s obviously not the true cost of those upgrades , instead it’s a tax for the software and Apple R&D.

If Apple charged the real cost of the RAM and Storage upgrades (lower amounts), or let you upgrade them yourself, they would have to just charge ALOT more for the base model which would be sure to decrease sales and upset more people.

Remember some mac minis just sit behind a TV showing a presentation, or used for Teams calls and email all day, nothing more.

 

[leman]

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.

I think you might be falling victim to the common "it was better back in the day" fallacy. Apple was always about profit maximization. You are cherry picking some anecdotal evidence to argue that the value used to be better, but you don't seem to consider the broader context at all.

Suddenly its not about the cost to apple or margins its about the perceived value.

It was always about perceived value. Please don't take this as an offence, but your ideas about price formation are a bit naive. I mean, I get what you are saying. RAM and storage is cheaper today than it was in 2012, so Apple should charge less. Yes, it would be "fair". But it would also be bad business for them.

The question you should be asking yourself is: if Lenovo is selling a ThinkPad X1 with an i5-1240P/8GB/256GB/1200p display for $1199 in 2023 — a computer that is in every single aspect inferior to the M2 MacBook Air, why should Apple give away more RAM/storage for free? Dell does give you 512GB SSD in the XPS 13", but that comes with a really crappy CPU and a poor quality display. Add a decent CPU and screen and you end up with the same price as the M2 Air for the same configuration — and still a crappier computer. Compared to most other premium brands, Apple's bottom end is very good value.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

Which raises the question - good value relative to what?

Apple Silicon makes Macs very competitive compared to Windows PCs of higher specs, and I think Apple knows it. The spec upgrades are priced such that even with the premium, you are still getting better performance compared to an equivalently priced windows PC.

In this regard, Apple gets to have their cake and eat it too. No expensive CPUs and GPUs to contend with, they don't have to pay Intel / AMD their hefty margins as well (Apple gets to keep the difference since they manufacture the chips themselves), and still be able to charge premium pricing because the competition isn't any cheaper.

 

[sam_dean]

Which raises the question - good value relative to what?

Apple Silicon makes Macs very competitive compared to Windows PCs of higher specs, and I think Apple knows it. The spec upgrades are priced such that even with the premium, you are still getting better performance compared to an equivalently priced windows PC.

In this regard, Apple gets to have their cake and eat it too. No expensive CPUs and GPUs to contend with, they don't have to pay Intel / AMD their hefty margins as well (Apple gets to keep the difference since they manufacture the chips themselves), and still be able to charge premium pricing because the competition isn't any cheaper.

Even then the RAM & SSD SKUs should be doubled.

Mac chips are awesome. No need for a spec bump based on MSRP.

 

[leman]

Even then the RAM & SSD SKUs should be doubled.

I still don’t understand why Apple should accept a significant cut to their revenue just because some people on a internet say so.

 

[Falhófnir]

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.

As far as I can tell, NAND flash prices stopped falling from 2018-2020, and actually increased through the pandemic. At some point over this period Apple moved from MLC to TLC memory, so I expect any wiggle room they have had is more down to that. I'd also love to reach the point where 1TB SSDs are price competitive with 1TB HDDs, but unless the pre-2018 price trend resumes, the tradeoff would probably be moving to even cheaper QLC memory. That may or may not be an issue depending on what you're doing, but for now I don't think I'd like to see Apple cutting quality further.

 

[mectojic]

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.

Does it? I'm not so sure these days. Where in their marketing or advertising do they come off as elitist/premium anymore?
I think Apple has more pushed cheaper, underspecced products like the iPhone SE, M1 Air and now M2 Mini for years now.

 

[leman]

I think Apple has more pushed cheaper, underspecced products like the iPhone SE, M1 Air and now M2 Mini for years now.

In which universe is M1/M2 considered underspecced?

 

[progx]

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.

I would like to add, Apple doesn’t view the PC are something most people will buy every 3-5 years. After Jobs famously said, “the PC is dead,” he wasn’t too far off the direction buying decisions would begin to swing. Just from my friends circle, I’m one of the few who still buy PC/Mac hardware. Some them still haven’t bought a new machine since 2009-2012 (range specifically), they’ve told me their phones (or tablets) do all the things they need. So, their PCs are either shoved in a closet or corner, they’re using smartphones for their normal usage. There are still lots of cheap Windows machines out there, but the usage is VERY low. Jobs said in the same breath the PC is still a backbone, but it’s the “truck” of the tech world with people upgrading every 7-10 years rather than old nineties and early 2000s mentality of replacing every 3-5 years. We haven’t really hit the year of the tablet yet either, which I believe is still happening.

Also, I believe the chip shortage hit the M2 line and Apple rolled with it. They have to plan these things far in advance for the sake of mass production and logistics. That’s why you never seem them make knee jerk changes to the hardware, like the very slow adoption of WiFi 6 was probably something thought out to run down their stock of wireless chips. Make one change to the board, you might have to make more of them just for one modification.

With that said, I think M3 line will be a great spot to jump into Apple Silicon for me. Apple might be giving Qualcomm a little running room (not intentionally) to help propel Arm (and RISCV) chipsets into the Windows world. This will benefit Apple’s Mac future, if Windows starts heading toward Arm-powered machines and away from X86.

 

[3448322]

I think the problem is that the base models Apple offers and unbalanced on purpose, they are ridiculously powerful in terms of CPU/GPU but hobbled by the skimpy amount of RAM/storage they come bundled with. Apple simply decided that it isn't profitable enough to offer "balanced" base models, so they do this.

I would gladly pay a little more to have a balanced base-model device which would keep Apple's margin per unit the same or even a little higher, but they don't want to offer this. Their strategy is to increase profits over time (and not only per unit sold) by guaranteeing that either 1 - the buyers of the base models will feel the need to upgrade sooner rather than later not because the CPU/GPU are insufficient, but because they can't upgrade RAM/internal storage, or 2 - make "upgraders" pay much higher margins to Apple on the spot through the extortionate prices of RAM/SSD they charge on BTO options.

This may be all legit, companies maximize profits, blah blah blah, but it certainly feels scammy if you understand it.

 

[unrigestered]

it isn't even so bad that you have to upgrade if you want to do more than things that either are quite basic, or just efficient.
i have a base M1 Air just for that in addition to a more buffed "stationary" MBP M1 Pro system and am extremely happy with it!

it's the ridiculous (overr)price tags Apple is putting on those upgrades which they only can charge since they are the only supplier of legitimate macOS systems.
in a PC world with tons of options to choose from, someone with such insane upgrade prices would be dead in the water in no time.

 

[dgdosen]

There's more of an economics answer to this question. As memory and storage component costs per GB continue to drop, competition will force some combination of lower prices/larger quantities of that stuff in 'base' models across the board. That will force Apple's hand.

If I were competing with Apple - I'd target their practices by raising base amounts in similar devices simply to target Apple's 'sweetest plum'.

 

[Dustman]

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.

Or alternatively,

They discovered most people just upgrade the RAM with the intention on leaning on externals when space runs out. So smart Apple would leave the machines RAM starved knowing you'll pay the upgrade, and halving the drive performance to create a scenario where that user is now inconvenienced into considering a storage upgrade as well now faced with a con.

What's actually criminal is Apple leaning on the media to explain the storage speed differences, and that they won't do the bare minimum of posting the drive speeds along-side the storage options the way they state core count for CPUs.

I will gladly take slower storage over a price increase, don't get me wrong. But there's so much gas lighting happening from both Apple and its user base right now. Apple could be forthcoming and trust its user base to remain loyal, but they aren't.