I've never owned a PC, and that kind of reply hasn't been considered witty for 20 years.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New M3 MacBook Air Models Expected Around March 2024
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've never owned a PC, and that kind of reply hasn't been considered witty for 20 years.
I'm not comparing my current computer at all. You keep repeating the "you paid for it" nonsense. Right, and I paid for the F key and the box, and the free shipping. I didn't pay for an upgrade, and RAM today costs about as much as the shipping.
Weird smugness defending a low RAM spec. It's not about computing, you all are on some other weird personal thing.
No it's called "that spec hasn't been upgraded in 10 years and it's a basic spec that costs peanuts but improves functionality with new software". I'm not going to untangle why a few of you can't grasp that other than wanting to feel better about your own purchases.
RAM costs do not validate that or defending a 10 year old base spec, but I appreciate all the creativity and mental gymnastics.
If there is no significant improvement in benchmark speeds, why would anyone buy this?
Looking at M3 speeds based on the entry level chip and potential for MBP cannabilization, I can't see the sense in this.
The market for used M2 MBAs will be flooded.
Looking at M3 speeds based on the entry level chip and potential for MBP cannabilization, I can't see the sense in this.
The market for used M2 MBAs will be flooded.
First of all, this machine isn't for M2 users. Much like an iPhone 15 isn't for iPhone 14 users. Yeah, some will upgrade, but most don't.
And… 17% isn't insignificant.
Superior design? Everyone has an opinion, but I have both in our house and use both. I do not find the design of the M1 superior in any way. The notch is irrelevant and 95% of time you can't even see it. If it pleases you, stick with the M1, but the claim of superior seems unsupported in every way.
Absolutely no way is Apple going to go back to the 2018 design after just one revision.
Then you fail to understand how Apple does business and arrives at their product points. Mental gymnastics aren’t necessary, just some common sense. Good luck with that.
And the aluminum shell material hasn’t been changed in more than that…🙄. Just because it’s been a spec for a while doesn’t mean it’s a bad one, that’s a logical fallacy. But I guess I don’t understand “mental gymnastics” as well as you do. Oh, and btw, this has nothing to do with “wanting to feel better about my own purchases”, lol! 😂🤣. Quite frankly, I don’t care about what you think about my purchases, you don’t have that level of sway in my life, lol! 😂🤣
Last edited:
Reading the debate over Apple's long-term and ongoing use of 8 gig RAM as a base (even in some 'Pro' labeled Macs), and the rationales for the 2 sides listed, perhaps some nuance is in play in the market.
1.) Some people buy products with an appliance mentality, some with more technical sophistication. Some people car shopping know the significance of different engine sizes, V6 vs. V8, etc..., and some expect a popular and expensive brand name product to be well-made and sufficient to the reasonably projected task.
2.) An M-series Mac with 8 gig RAM can get a lot done today, particularly if not many app.s are open at once. Considering many people expect to use a notebook several years, I wonder how much performance throttling in common use scenarios we're likely to see in 2 or 3 years. This wouldn't matter if RAM were upgradable.
3.) I might give Apple more benefit-of-the-doubt if not only were their upgrade options quite expensive (notoriously so on this forum), but some of their other pricing appears to learn toward gouging. A quick look at Apple's website shows:
Roughly 700 Bucks for a set of wheels for a computer tower.
A glorified monitor stand for roughly a grand.
Apple products often cost most than seemingly comparable PCs. There are plenty of notebook PCs shipping with 8 gig RAM, but they're cheaper than the Macs.
Of course, people have the option to upgrade...if they understand the issues and are aware of the tradeoffs. People don't know what they don't know. It's not unlike recently when word got out the internal SSD performance on small, baseline configuration Mac drives was substantially slower than on larger ones, which hadn't been publicized.
It'd be interesting to know what % of people who buy base configuration Macs are knowledgable about the tradeoffs involved and make well-informed decisions. Some do.
I think the debate hinges on that. If everyone were well-versed in the tradeoffs and made informed decisions, it wouldn't matter if Apple set a baseline with 1 gig RAM because everyone would know not to buy it. We may never agree on what minimum is good enough.
1.) Some people buy products with an appliance mentality, some with more technical sophistication. Some people car shopping know the significance of different engine sizes, V6 vs. V8, etc..., and some expect a popular and expensive brand name product to be well-made and sufficient to the reasonably projected task.
2.) An M-series Mac with 8 gig RAM can get a lot done today, particularly if not many app.s are open at once. Considering many people expect to use a notebook several years, I wonder how much performance throttling in common use scenarios we're likely to see in 2 or 3 years. This wouldn't matter if RAM were upgradable.
3.) I might give Apple more benefit-of-the-doubt if not only were their upgrade options quite expensive (notoriously so on this forum), but some of their other pricing appears to learn toward gouging. A quick look at Apple's website shows:
Apple Mac Pro Wheels Kit
$699.00Roughly 700 Bucks for a set of wheels for a computer tower.
Pro Stand
$999.00A glorified monitor stand for roughly a grand.
Apple products often cost most than seemingly comparable PCs. There are plenty of notebook PCs shipping with 8 gig RAM, but they're cheaper than the Macs.
Of course, people have the option to upgrade...if they understand the issues and are aware of the tradeoffs. People don't know what they don't know. It's not unlike recently when word got out the internal SSD performance on small, baseline configuration Mac drives was substantially slower than on larger ones, which hadn't been publicized.
It'd be interesting to know what % of people who buy base configuration Macs are knowledgable about the tradeoffs involved and make well-informed decisions. Some do.
I think the debate hinges on that. If everyone were well-versed in the tradeoffs and made informed decisions, it wouldn't matter if Apple set a baseline with 1 gig RAM because everyone would know not to buy it. We may never agree on what minimum is good enough.
You're comparing functional RAM to aesthetics and that's misleading about case materials and design anyway.
The aluminum casing is functional. And there’s nothing misleading about pointing out that they’re still using Aluminum like a decade later… That’s just a fact. The point is that your argument is a logical fallacy. Just because something has existed for a while, been done for a while, etc., doesn’t mean that it‘s a bad thing. If 8GB of RAM is still functional for most people (which the popularity of the base spec and high customer satisfaction would suggest that it is), then that’s not a bad thing. Specs aren’t upgraded on arbitrary timelines: “oops, it’s been 10 years, time to upgrade the RAM…”. Rather, base specs are upgraded as there is need. When more RAM is needed in order for the system to function normally for most people, then it will increase. Today isn’t that day, 8GB of RAM is still plenty for most people, and that’s why Apple is still producing those base specs.
Well they're arguing that ignorance is bliss and that it somehow proves there's no tradeoffs and that's the only way to explain why Apple hasn't upgraded. It's comical.
What I can say is I noticed a shift with the MacBook Air release right before the M1, and the M1 when the people who normally would buy the high end models were suddenly thinking the way I had, that you can buy a base model and get it done. The 20 seconds difference is transcoding or whatever seemed trivial, and people weren't satisfied with the release schedule or pro models.
But this really reminds me of the period before transition from system 9 to X, to Intel, and 32 to 64bit.
It only sounds arbitrary to you, there's nothing arbitrary. 32bit was functional too. People didn't need an M chip, the Intel chips were more than enough or most people, so if we're calling out logical fallacies, it's yours.
Upgrades happen to allow progress past current limitations as the tech improves, or becomes cheaper.
Apple traditionally pulls their customers along, and gets ahead of the curve not vice versa.
You’re the one making logical fallacies, not me. You’re pretending that “x spec option has existed for 10 years, so it’s bad and no longer useful” isn’t a logical fallacy, but it is. The M-Series chips actually make a substantial improvement for the average user with things like much longer battery runtimes, no cooling fans required, etc. These are meaningful differences for everyone. Many people for whom 8GB of RAM is plenty would never benefit from 16GB. So they aren’t even remotely comparable things.
That's technically illiterate. You don't want to be in swap all the time, and RAM can offer more improvements than added cores. Plus longevity matters and OS updates are going to be more and more demanding.
That’s not technically illiterate, that’s reality. Plenty of people use it without it being in swap all the time. You’re making a lot of assumptions.
That's not really how Apple designs their products, IMO. My understanding is that they look at the end desired experience, then work backwards to see how best to deliver that experience. Specs are just the means, not the end. Meaning if 16gb ram is not going to allow the end user to get more done relative to what he is already doing today with 8gb ram, then there really is no reason to include that extra ram.
A counterpoint can be made with iPhones getting more ram, likely to support the better camera features. Apple isn't giving users more ram because they have a glut of ram chips lying around somewhere. It's there because Apple has determined that the iPhone's camera needs that much ram to properly function (which explains why the base iPhone models have less ram, because they sport less powerful cameras which don't require as much resources to operate).
For example, you keep calling out Final Cut Pro as an example of an application that absolutely needs 16gb of ram to run (I can't speak from personal experience as to whether this is true or not as I don't use it, but let's take your words at face value). The majority of Mac users simply don't use pro software like FCP (in part because iMovie suffices and because they have to spend hundreds of dollars on it) and are therefore not going to benefit meaningfully from more ram if they are never going to be in a situation that calls for that much more ram.
You are right in that nobody "needs" an M chip, in that Macs were perfectly serviceable prior, but it did bring with it better performance, longer battery life and cooler thermals, all of which are benefits that are independent of the amount of ram in a device. They have allowed Apple to design Macs on their terms and better differentiate their products (eg: a compact desktop like the Mac Studio that doesn't suffer from insufficient cooling).
This is how Apple pulls their customers along. Not by trying to win a meaningless spec war with other cheaper windows laptops, but by focusing on the metrics that actually matter to the end user, like longer battery life. And you don't need 16gb of ram for that.
I think this is another reason why Apple can get away with including "just" 8gb of ram in their Macs. They control the OS, and are presumably able to optimise it for the hardware they run on. If Apple knows that the majority of M1 Macs out there sport "just" 8gb of ram, the OS is going to be coded to run properly on that much ram. I don't think the amount of ram on your Mac is going to meaningfully extend its longevity (I suspect Apple will just decide to stop supporting all M1 Macs at a predetermined cut-off date regardless of how much ram it has).
Also, it doesn't make sense that even if OS updates get more demanding over time to the point that a machine with 8gb ram is no longer enough, that it will push users to upgrade from a M1 Mac with 8gb ram to ... an M4 or M5 Mac with also 8gb of ram?
At best, maybe an argument can be made that one's needs may change over time, and even then, that comes with a lot of asterisks. I have been a school teacher for a little more than 10 years now. My computing needs haven't really changed very much. Browser usage (and a lot gets done via the browser), office, some basic productivity apps here and there, maybe some iMovie occasionally for when I need to edit videos for school events. My entry level M1 MBA more than suffices for these tasks.
And assuming I stay a teacher, my commuting needs are projected to stay the same for the next decade at least (remember that the majority of teachers in the industry are not very tech savvy at all), and I don't see these applications suddenly needing more resources over the next 10 years that my MBA becomes obsolete overnight. Plus, I will definitely have upgraded my Mac at least once or twice by then. If I need more ram, I have no qualms about paying for it, or simply get one of the Pro models that comes with more ram.
Even if I decide to suddenly quit and find another job, what are the odds that said vocation requires me to own a way more powerful computer than I currently have, and doesn't provide me with the tools I require for the role? The only one I can think of is a YouTuber (essentially being self-employed) who might decide to dabble with 8k footage some day, which again, doesn't seem like a very broad scenario.
The people concerned about the longevity of their devices are very likely not the ones buying entry level Macs to begin with (this whole furore seems to have started with the M3 MBP being released). This entire saga just reeks of concern trolling to me. The people who don't use these entry level Macs deciding to bash Apple on the pretext of being very concerned that the vast majority of users are somehow being scammed by Apple (who are in reality perfectly happy with their entry level 8gb ram Macs and have no issues with it).
Exactly, I don’t know if I could have said it better! 👍🏻That's not really how Apple designs their products, IMO. My understanding is that they look at the end desired experience, then work backwards to see how best to deliver that experience. Specs are just the means, not the end. Meaning if 16gb ram is not going to allow the end user to get more done relative to what he is already doing today with 8gb ram, then there really is no reason to include that extra ram.
A counterpoint can be made with iPhones getting more ram, likely to support the better camera features. Apple isn't giving users more ram because they have a glut of ram chips lying around somewhere. It's there because Apple has determined that the iPhone's camera needs that much ram to properly function (which explains why the base iPhone models have less ram, because they sport less powerful cameras which don't require as much resources to operate).
For example, you keep calling out Final Cut Pro as an example of an application that absolutely needs 16gb of ram to run (I can't speak from personal experience as to whether this is true or not as I don't use it, but let's take your words at face value). The majority of Mac users simply don't use pro software like FCP (in part because iMovie suffices and because they have to spend hundreds of dollars on it) and are therefore not going to benefit meaningfully from more ram if they are never going to be in a situation that calls for that much more ram.
You are right in that nobody "needs" an M chip, in that Macs were perfectly serviceable prior, but it did bring with it better performance, longer battery life and cooler thermals, all of which are benefits that are independent of the amount of ram in a device. They have allowed Apple to design Macs on their terms and better differentiate their products (eg: a compact desktop like the Mac Studio that doesn't suffer from insufficient cooling).
This is how Apple pulls their customers along. Not by trying to win a meaningless spec war with other cheaper windows laptops, but by focusing on the metrics that actually matter to the end user, like longer battery life. And you don't need 16gb of ram for that.
I think this is another reason why Apple can get away with including "just" 8gb of ram in their Macs. They control the OS, and are presumably able to optimise it for the hardware they run on. If Apple knows that the majority of M1 Macs out there sport "just" 8gb of ram, the OS is going to be coded to run properly on that much ram. I don't think the amount of ram on your Mac is going to meaningfully extend its longevity (I suspect Apple will just decide to stop supporting all M1 Macs at a predetermined cut-off date regardless of how much ram it has).
Also, it doesn't make sense that even if OS updates get more demanding over time to the point that a machine with 8gb ram is no longer enough, that it will push users to upgrade from a M1 Mac with 8gb ram to ... an M4 or M5 Mac with also 8gb of ram?
At best, maybe an argument can be made that one's needs may change over time, and even then, that comes with a lot of asterisks. I have been a school teacher for a little more than 10 years now. My computing needs haven't really changed very much. Browser usage (and a lot gets done via the browser), office, some basic productivity apps here and there, maybe some iMovie occasionally for when I need to edit videos for school events. My entry level M1 MBA more than suffices for these tasks.
And assuming I stay a teacher, my commuting needs are projected to stay the same for the next decade at least (remember that the majority of teachers in the industry are not very tech savvy at all), and I don't see these applications suddenly needing more resources over the next 10 years that my MBA becomes obsolete overnight. Plus, I will definitely have upgraded my Mac at least once or twice by then. If I need more ram, I have no qualms about paying for it, or simply get one of the Pro models that comes with more ram.
Even if I decide to suddenly quit and find another job, what are the odds that said vocation requires me to own a way more powerful computer than I currently have, and doesn't provide me with the tools I require for the role? The only one I can think of is a YouTuber (essentially being self-employed) who might decide to dabble with 8k footage some day, which again, doesn't seem like a very broad scenario.
The people concerned about the longevity of their devices are very likely not the ones buying entry level Macs to begin with (this whole furore seems to have started with the M3 MBP being released). This entire saga just reeks of concern trolling to me. The people who don't use these entry level Macs deciding to bash Apple on the pretext of being very concerned that the vast majority of users are somehow being scammed by Apple (who are in reality perfectly happy with their entry level 8gb ram Macs and have no issues with it).
The base model MacBook Air from 2013, ten years ago, came with 4GB of ram.
The current base model MacBook Air comes with 8GB of ram.
When you say “that spec hasn’t been upgraded in 10 years” what you really mean to say is “that spec has doubled in 10 years”.
Last edited:
Kal Madda wrote: "because even at it’s thickest, M2 MacBook Air is thinner than the M1 MacBook Air."
This is complete nonsense:
The M1 MacBook Air is 0.16 inch thin at the front (41mm)
The M2 MacBook Air is 0.44 inch thin (everywhere) (113mm)
So, the M2 MacBook Air is almost 3 times THICKER than the M1 design at the front. That means that in the place where your hand wants to naturally rest, the wedge shaped M1 is ergonomically vastly superior.
From a business point of view it *seems* simple- margins are well up since the Intel days, thanks to bringing the CPU and graphics in house, and components like RAM and SSD crashing in price, MBP base prices are the highest ever, exchange rates are almost nonsensically high in Apple's favour, upgrade costs are sky high, etc. What you fail to take into account is the opinion of the customer- disappoint them, sell fewer machines, and at some point the bottom line is impacted and Apple bank a smaller total profit.
My take is that the M series are so good that everyone upgraded to M1, but then incentive is far lower to upgrade beyond that. Hence the drop in sales.
Lol, what nonsense is this. It was doubled in one year and then stayed stagnant for nine.