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

[Analog Kid]

What's actually criminal

Which law did they break in which jurisdiction?

It’s amazing to watch people get worked into such an irrational frenzy over this— it starts with stupid, then sleazy, then insulting, then predatory, now criminal…. We’re probably only 100 posts from Apple being sent to the Hague because their base storage makes people, who by most accounts aren’t buying the base models, feel bad.

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

And you'd have to live in a PC world. It is precisely the fact that Apple is able to sustain higher margins that allows them to provide the products they do.

Some of my best friends live in the PC world. They get by. If you want tons of options, all mostly the same, to choose from that world remains open to everyone.

The PC world isn't immune to this kind of thinking though-- does an i9 cost Intel as much more to make than an i7, i5, or i3 as what they charge for them? Most PC makers are commodity integrators, the margins and profits are being captured by their suppliers: Intel, Microsoft, AMD, and Nvidia-- so the price differences aren't tied to storage, which is a commodity component, they're tied to some processor part number or GPU model. Dell and HP might be given a pass because, by the logic of this discussion so far, they're passing along their costs to the customer and not "gouging", but the market segmentation and margin maintenance is happening among their suppliers.

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

I'm going to try this one more time, and maybe it'll get somewhere.

Apple doesn't make more profit off the base end model, they make less. There are no differences between members of a line beyond the storage and everyone agrees the steps in storage are priced higher than they cost. So the difference in price Apple charges from one step to another is more than their difference in cost-- their margin is different for different products in the line and it is lower for the lower end models and higher for the higher end models.

Eliminating the current low end model and forcing those customers to buy a higher spec'd "base" model with margins "the same or even a little higher" will increase Apple's overall profits and price out low end customers-- because they would be eliminating the lower margin products from the line.

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.

They do, you just don't call it a "base model". They offer exactly the same hardware as the "base" but what you as one opinion might consider "more balanced" and they sell it at a little higher margin. You can have exactly what you claim to want.

But for some reason, you and others are obsessed with the products you don't want. It upsets you for some reason that there is another product in the line below the one you want that is lower margin and less to your liking but that is sufficient to plenty of other customers.

 

[bcortens]

I'm going to try this one more time, and maybe it'll get somewhere.

Apple doesn't make more profit off the base end model, they make less. There are no differences between members of a line beyond the storage and everyone agrees the steps in storage are priced higher than they cost. So the difference in price Apple charges from one step to another is more than their difference in cost-- their margin is different for different products in the line and it is lower for the lower end models and higher for the higher end models.

Eliminating the current low end model and forcing those customers to buy a higher spec'd "base" model with margins "the same or even a little higher" will increase Apple's overall profits and price out low end customers-- because they would be eliminating the lower margin products from the line.


They do, you just don't call it a "base model". They offer exactly the same hardware as the "base" but what you as one opinion might consider "more balanced" and they sell it at a little higher margin. You can have exactly what you claim to want.

But for some reason, you and other are obsessed with the products you don't want. It upsets you for some reason that there is another product in the line below the one you want that is lower margin and less to your liking but that is sufficient to plenty of other customers.

Aren’t you doing exactly the same thing? People protest apples product decisions in recent years, you try and provide justification, people respond. Why do you care about what Apple does so much? I care but supposedly I shouldn’t care and should just accept that they always right… hypocrisy at its finest here.

 

[Analog Kid]

Aren’t you doing exactly the same thing? People protest apples product decisions in recent years, you try and provide justification, people respond. Why do you care about what Apple does so much? I care but supposedly I shouldn’t care and should just accept that they always right… hypocrisy at its finest here.

Doing the same as what? I'm not complaining about products I don't want. As I've said above, I don't care what Apple does outside of providing a product I'm willing to buy. And even the the only reason I care is because if they don't I'll have to go somewhere else.

The hypocrisy, I suspect, is that many of the people here who are attempting to appeal to higher principles really just want more for less and are trying to avoid framing it as personal greed.

If they said that, I'd have no reason to respond.

 

[Joe Dohn]

The hypocrisy, I suspect, is that many of the people here who are attempting to appeal to higher principles really just want more for less and are trying to avoid framing it as personal greed.

Apple charges way more than the competitors for storage and memory, while sometimes offering much less in value.
Is asking for the same value their competitors offer greed?
So we should just quietly accept whatever value Apple proposes?

 

[Analog Kid]

Apple charges way more than the competitors for storage and memory, while sometimes offering much less in value.
Is asking for the same value their competitors offer greed?
So we should just quietly accept whatever value Apple proposes?

No, if they don't offer the same value as their competitors you should buy from their competitors. This isn't a religion. You won't go to hell for changing brands.

 

[Joe Dohn]

This isn't a religion.

Some people here make me really doubt it isn't.

 

[Analog Kid]

Some people here make me really doubt it isn't.

The irony is that the people who strike me as true zealots are the ones who cry and complain about how Apple is abusing them but are unwilling to consider an alternative.

 

[Joe Dohn]

The irony is that the people who strike me as true zealots are the ones who cry and complain about how Apple is abusing them but are unwilling to consider an alternative.

I don't think anyone here has personally claimed Apple is abusing them. We are commenting on the limitations Apple has as a brand. You usually don't bitch much about things you don't care about.

 

[unrigestered]

The PC world isn't immune to this kind of thinking though

of course not. that's always the trouble with "monopolies"

i just hope that by the time when my next Macbooks are in order in about 5-7 years that $200-400 jumps between a couple of GB RAM and TB of HDD space will seem so silly next to the $20 jumps on other brands, that Apple will have no choice but to make their upgrade prices less insane

 

[Analog Kid]

I don't think anyone here has personally claimed Apple is abusing them. We are commenting on the limitations Apple has as a brand. You usually don't bitch much about things you don't care about.

Yes my language was colored for effect, but the tone on this was pretty close:

So we should just quietly accept whatever value Apple proposes?

Which this whole conversation has primed me to hear as "They can do whatever they want to us and we just have to take it?"

 

[Dustman]

Which law did they break in which jurisdiction?

It’s amazing to watch people get worked into such an irrational frenzy over this— it starts with stupid, then sleazy, then insulting, then predatory, now criminal…. We’re probably only 100 posts from Apple being sent to the Hague because their base storage makes people, who by most accounts aren’t buying the base models, feel bad.

That's pretty pedantic, and a good illustration of what I'm talking about.

Just because something isn't CRIMINAL doesn't make it moral. Being forthcoming is extremely valid ask from a user base.

They're entitled to have an upgrade path and strategy as they feel fit. They're allowed to charge more for higher performance. What they should NOT have the right to do is not add a fan to an iMac, not tell the consumer their iMac is different than their friends. It's virtually identical to advertising and selling an SSD, and then later swapping out the components for cheaper ones. Except with Apple, they have a loyal fanbase to handle the PR.

I repeat. They could keep everything the same, and just tell the consumer that's purchasing their product that it doesn't have that extra fan, or that SSD speed you had last time. You'd be insane to argue against that.

 

[bcortens]

Doing the same as what? I'm not complaining about products I don't want. As I've said above, I don't care what Apple does outside of providing a product I'm willing to buy. And even the the only reason I care is because if they don't I'll have to go somewhere else.

The hypocrisy, I suspect, is that many of the people here who are attempting to appeal to higher principles really just want more for less and are trying to avoid framing it as personal greed.

If they said that, I'd have no reason to respond.

You’re here defending apples choices with quite a bit of heat, choices that don’t really affect you directly… so yeah, you’re complaining that people are critical of Apple and saying that getting invested is irrational while simultaneously getting invested…

You have repeatedly accused people of being self interested and mercurial al and yet resent it when others accuse you of the same.

You are just as invested as others but seem more invested in the Tim Cook status quo while I and others dislike the Tim Cook era status quo.

 

[3448322]

I'm going to try this one more time, and maybe it'll get somewhere.

Jesus, some people here are really tetchy and take their own opinions way too seriously.

All I said is that Apple's base models are unbalanced devices because they figure that's how they maximize their profits in the long run, because they tend to become obsolete/unsuitable faster and can't be upgraded, so they become e-waste or the user repurposes it to a less important function and buys a new one. More $$$ for Apple. Yes, profit margins for Apple are higher on BTOs, because by upping RAM and storage you're trying to evade this little trick of theirs, so you pay not only the cost of the upgrades plus the x% margin you'd be already paying on the base model, but also some extra y% in margins for them on top of the x%.

That Apple's base models are unbalanced I think is indisputable. Why? Because customers who are okay with 8gb RAM and 256gb of storage most likely also don't need the power of an M2 chip. Pairing the M2 (or even the m1 b4 that) with 8gb RAM is almost criminal. It's like making a car with a powerful, high-torque engine, and pairing it with a ****** transmission.

EDIT: LOL at Macrumors for censoring sh**ty

 

[3448322]

You are just as invested as others but seem more invested in the Tim Cook status quo while I and others dislike the Tim Cook era status quo.

It's not that I merely dislike Tim Cook, Tim Cook gives me the creeps. Corporate CEOs are often of the soulless type, but Tim Cook is at another level of phoniness, strongest reptilian vibes I've ever seen.

 

[sam_dean]

8GB RAM & 256GB SSD on a base model Mac started in 2012.

That's over a decade ago...

 

[Klae17]

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.

My boss should pay me double for the same amount of work too.

 

[sam_dean]

My boss should pay me double for the same amount of work too.

Your boss is correct.

 

[boss.king]

8GB RAM & 256GB SSD on a base model Mac started in 2012.

That's over a decade ago...

Which Mac? Just like now, different models have different base specs. I’m pretty sure the base MacBook Air, for example, came as 4/128 standard and maxed out at 8/512.

 

[sam_dean]

Which Mac? Just like now, different models have different base specs. I’m pretty sure the base MacBook Air, for example, came as 4/128 standard and maxed out at 8/512.

2012 iMac for 8GB RAM

2012 Macbook Pro 15" for 256GB SSD

After a decade... Apple should make 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD base M1/M2 memory & storage specs.

Now, I do somewhat agree with gimping the base model's SSD speeds to say 2.8GB/s as odds are end user wouldnt use it for multitutdes of huge files all at once.

 

[boss.king]

2012 iMac for 8GB RAM

2012 Macbook Pro 15" for 256GB SSD

After a decade... Apple should make 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD base M1/M2 memory & storage specs.

Now, I do somewhat agree with gimping the base model's SSD speeds to say 2.8GB/s as odds are end user wouldnt use it for multitutdes of huge files all at once.

The new Pros (not the 13” POS that no one should buy) do start at 16/512.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Which this whole conversation has primed me to hear as "They can do whatever they want to us and we just have to take it?"

Should we then?

 

[sam_dean]

The new Pros (not the 13” POS that no one should buy) do start at 16/512.

I am talking about the M1/M2 base models.

 

[boss.king]

I am talking about the M1/M2 base models.

No one should be buying those touchbar Pro machines in the first place.