The White Unibody MacBook has same storage as M4 Air

[salamanderjuice]

It’s not defending Apple. OP could have just compared MBA from 15 years ago to M4 MBA. It’s well known that Apple started subsidizing base models from 2011 after dropping the price from 1600 to 999. A base model MBA that cost 1600 base model now costs 999.

They don't "subsidize" base models. I guarantee they don't lose a nickel on them. They make less margin sure, but they do stupid stuff like charge $800 for less than $200 worth of NAND so of course they do.

The original MBA was a weird, crappy thing built to be as thin and light as possible with weird compromises like 1 recessed USB port and an iPod sized HDD. Apple's entry level laptop was the $999 MacBook in 2009. You only bought the MBA if youvwanted thin and light above all else. In pretty much every respect but size it was a worse machine than the $999 MacBook.

With the less compromised, less focused on thin and light 2nd gen MBA that started to shift. But it's not because they were subsidizing the base model.

 

[CraigJDuffy]

They’re comparable in storage capacity, which was the thing being compared by the OP.

And cars are comparable in number of tyres which is what I compared when comparing cars today to cars to 100 years ago

 

[CraigJDuffy]

A

And in 2009 a 250GB 2.5" HDD cost around $70 at retail. Or about $100 in 2025 dollars. A 256GB SSD today at retail is $20-30. The name brands don't even really bother with that size anymore.

And that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion as Apple are not selling the machine as parts / at cost price. They’re selling it as a whole unit
Lots of things on the BOM are higher in the M4 Air than in the 2009
Machine.

 

[CraigJDuffy]

A

And that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion as Apple are not selling the machine as parts / at cost price. They’re selling it as a whole unit
Lots of things on the BOM are higher in the M4 Air than in the 2009
Machine.

Point is if you spend a 2009 $999 today (which is actually 1500) you get a MacBook Air with 1TB storage and 16GB of RAM for the same price as a 250gb 2GB 2009 machine.

 

[rampancy]

My spunky 2010 11" MacBook Air with 64 GB SSD storage is laughing right now.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Apologies, I don't have any Apple stock.

Why not? No retirement funds? No interest in having a stake in a company when you use its products and like enough to spend time on a website about that company?

 

[neuropsychguy]

They don't "subsidize" base models. I guarantee they don't lose a nickel on them. They make less margin sure, but they do stupid stuff like charge $800 for less than $200 worth of NAND so of course they do.

You nicely described how Apple subsidizes the base models. Subsidizing does not mean a company would lose money on a base model (although it could). It simply means that the entity, Apple in this case, uses some funds (e.g., higher priced upgrades) to pay for part of something. In Apple's case, high margin upgrades support the slimmer margins of base models.

Apple has basically always been a high margin company. That was true back in the early 1980s. It was true in the 2000s with Jobs (although margins were lower for a while as Apple built up new products and manufacturing partnerships).

 

[TechnoMonk]

They don't "subsidize" base models. I guarantee they don't lose a nickel on them. They make less margin sure, but they do stupid stuff like charge $800 for less than $200 worth of NAND so of course they do.

The original MBA was a weird, crappy thing built to be as thin and light as possible with weird compromises like 1 recessed USB port and an iPod sized HDD. Apple's entry level laptop was the $999 MacBook in 2009. You only bought the MBA if youvwanted thin and light above all else. In pretty much every respect but size it was a worse machine than the $999 MacBook.

With the less compromised, less focused on thin and light 2nd gen MBA that started to shift. But it's not because they were subsidizing the base model.

MBA is the right comparison, and gives a trend of last 16-17 years. Apple doesn’t sell MacBook, it’s not worth comparing to something that doesn’t exist in 2025.
Subsidy doesn’t mean loss, it means the margins are lower to keep the entry price of the product line lower. It’s no different than the cars or other gadgets. The base model price is low, but they make money up more on Upgrades.

 

[TechnoMonk]

My spunky 2010 11" MacBook Air with 64 GB SSD storage is laughing right now.

I still have the 2010 11” MBA with 128 GB storage. I ordered a 64 GB on refurb store with one day shipping, Apple sent me 128 GB with higher processor and more RAM.

 

[salamanderjuice]

MBA is the right comparison, and gives a trend of last 16-17 years. Apple doesn’t sell MacBook, it’s not worth comparing to something that doesn’t exist in 2025.
Subsidy doesn’t mean loss, it means the margins are lower to keep the entry price of the product line lower. It’s no different than the cars or other gadgets. The base model price is low, but they make money up more on Upgrades.

The 2015 MacBook is more like the original MacBook Air was. They're both dead. It makes perfect sense to compare the cheapest Apple laptop in 2009 to the cheapest Apple laptop in 2025. Most people aren't buying a $999 MacBook Air because it's a MacBook Air. They're buying it because it's the cheapest Apple laptop.

And lower margins are not a subsidy either. And Apple's product line has always been like that since the Apple II. Higher margins at the high end. Didn't start in 2010 when they suddenly started "subsiding" the entry level.

 

[TechnoMonk]

The 2015 MacBook is more like the original MacBook Air was. They're both dead. It makes perfect sense to compare the cheapest Apple laptop in 2009 to the cheapest Apple laptop in 2025. Most people aren't buying a $999 MacBook Air because it's a MacBook Air. They're buying it because it's the cheapest Apple laptop.

And lower margins are not a subsidy either. And Apple's product line has always been like that since the Apple II. Higher margins at the high end. Didn't start in 2010 when they suddenly started "subsiding" the entry level.

It makes no sense, I can arbitrarily pick a laptop from 2000 and make a post on 25 years to fit my agenda. The cheapest laptop in 2009 is 1600 after inflation, and then it looks ridiculous to compare even the cheapest laptop to current MBA. And not to mention cheapest laptop from 2009 was. Ugly cheap plastic crap. Why just stop at storage if you are comparing cheapest, compare the body, processor memory and so on.

 

[sleeptodream]

These *******s are selling us luxury computers, just make 16gb / 1tb the base and be done with all the complaints.

They could, starting at $1399. They have to get those margins

The 2015 MacBook is more like the original MacBook Air was. They're both dead. It makes perfect sense to compare the cheapest Apple laptop in 2009 to the cheapest Apple laptop in 2025. Most people aren't buying a $999 MacBook Air because it's a MacBook Air. They're buying it because it's the cheapest Apple laptop.

And lower margins are not a subsidy either. And Apple's product line has always been like that since the Apple II. Higher margins at the high end. Didn't start in 2010 when they suddenly started "subsiding" the entry level.

Subsidize just means to lower the cost of something, it doesn’t need to be a loss leader for it to be subsidized.

Apple has a target overall margin for the Macbook Air line, as well as a target number of units to ship to maintain their market share.

The margin they would get starting the storage at 512gb is apparently not at their target for the $999 price point, so rather than starting the MBA at $1099 or $1199 with 512 they start with 256 and the upgrade prices are increased to get their average margin where they want it.

There are smarter people than any of us working in their finance department, trust me, they know what they’re doing, and their success reflects that.

The benefit is that the bar to entry is lower this way, so those that don’t need the higher storage (think many elderly consumers who would benefit significantly from Apple’s easier to use UI) or can make due with external storage can still get a Mac. In the 2000s Macs were very very much a luxury, and I think some here may be stuck in that mindset that even the entry products should be perfect and not need upgrades, but nowadays their entry pricing is much more competitive with Windows machines, despite them having to develop and maintain their own OS, which is expensive.

 

[Spookytree]

for some people 8/128 is still okay. I think the 8/128 M1 macbook air for Education was really neat. you could save 100$ and get a perfectly fine student laptop. Yes, personally I can't believe we were fine with 128 and 64 GB macbook airs 10-15 years ago, and now, it's only for the most basic of all users. Personally I need 16 GB and 1 TB, because VM, Final Cut, and loads of ISO files for my old mac projects and such. I could see why apple isn't raising the base to 512, because they want you to use iCloud. Typical corporate greed

 

[racerhomie]

My spunky 2010 11" MacBook Air with 64 GB SSD storage is laughing right now.

Your one is functional? Could you give some screenshots of the Storage Section in System Profiler? I haven’t ever seen the 64GB version

 

[Dennis Jay]

It's interesting to see how storage needs have evolved! While the storage capacity hasn't changed much, the shift from HDD to SSD has made a big difference in speed and performance, which is crucial for today's applications. With cloud storage and external drives, it's easier than ever to manage and expand our storage needs. However, it might still be a challenge for those who do a lot of work with large files or apps. It's always fascinating to compare tech advancements over the years!

 

[Arctic Moose]

Technology marches on.

Specification	2009 Unibody MacBook	2025 MacBook Air	Improvement
Processor speed	2.26 GHz	4.4 GHz	95%
Geekbench (single-core)	302	2605	763%
Geekbench (multi-core)	524	12650	2314%
RAM	2 GB	16 GB	700%
Storage	250 GB	256 GB	2.4% (~0%)
Read	80 MB/s	3018 MB/s	3672%
Write	80 MB/s	3456 MB/s	4220%
Resolution	1280×800 (13.3")	2560×1664 (13.6")	316%
Brightness	200 nits	500 nits	150%
Battery	7 hours	18 hours	157%
Speakers	2	4	100%
Wi-Fi	300 Mbps	1.2 Gbps	300%
Camera	0.3 MP	12 MP	3900%
USB	480 Mbps	40 Gbps	8233%

 

[Ishimura]

Why not? No retirement funds? No interest in having a stake in a company when you use its products and like enough to spend time on a website about that company?

What a strange reaction. I use lots of companies products while not investing in them. As for being here, I'm here to get advice and insights into Apple products (especially now, as I consider a Mac), not because I'm part of a bizarre brand cult.

 

[Ishimura]

And cars are comparable in number of tyres which is what I compared when comparing cars today to cars to 100 years ago

It's an atrocious analogy, which reeks of desperation.

Cars wouldn't benefit from any additional wheels (tyre proxy) today - if they would then we would have seen a manufacturer produce a model with more wheels. Amongst car owners, there is no demand or clamour for a six-wheeled car.

By contrast, Mac customers or potential Mac customers are clamouring for more base storage. We'd also all benefit from increased base storage on Macs today as many apps and media have ballooned in size over the past 10 years. So has the OS, which takes up a not inconsiderable amount of space on current base storage entry-level Macs.

 

[Ishimura]

Same with cars. I know it doesn't cost Toyota $2500 to make nicer seats and yet here they are charging all this money for interior upgrades. Why don't they sell it at cost? I'm going to go on all the Honda forums I can find and complain about how unfair it is, endlessly, and if anyone disagrees with me I'm going to call them "Toyota fanboys" or "fanatics" and keep complaining about it in every thread. Forever.

I've never seen anybody ask or expect Apple or any corporation to sell anything at cost, that's a ridiculous strawman. I certainly don't expect that, nor have I ever demanded it. We all understand Apple has to make a profit.

Apple could slash the cost of their storage upgrades by 50% and still have huge profit margins on those upgrades.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Technology marches on.

Specification	2009 Unibody	2025 MacBook Air	Improvement
Processor speed	2.26 GHz	4.4 GHz	95%
Geekbench (single-core)	302	2605	763%
Geekbench (multi-core)	524	12650	2314%
RAM	2 GB	16 GB	700%
Storage	250 GB	256 GB	2.4% (~0%)
Read	80 MB/s	3018 MB/s	3672%
Write	80 MB/s	3456 MB/s	4220%
Resolution	1280×800 (13.3")	2560×1664 (13.6")	316%
Brightness	200 nits	500 nits	150%
Battery	7 hours	18 hours	157%
Speakers	2	4	100%
Wi-Fi	300 Mbps	1.2 Gbps	300%
Camera	0.3 MP	12 MP	3900%
USB	480 Mbps	40 Gbps	8233%

Nice comparison. It might also be interesting to adjust everything for inflation. That might seem odd, but it would allow for a price-adjusted comparison.

Let's look at the Geekbench score and adjust for 2025 dollars.

2009: 302 / 1491 = 0.203 'geeks' per 2025 dollar
2025: 2605 / 1000 = 2.605 'geeks' per 2025 dollar

That's a 12.86X per dollar improvement (up from 7.63X).

RAM

2009: 2 / 1491 = 0.001 GB per 2025 dollar
2025: 16 / 1000 = 0.011 GB per 2025 dollar

That's a 11.928X per dollar improvement (up from 7X).

Storage

2009: 250 / 1491 = 0.168 GB per 2025 dollar
2025: 256/1000 = 0.256 GB per 2025 dollar

That's a 0.65X per dollar improvement (up from 0.024).

That's still an outlier, but the technology completely shifted for storage (as your read/write metrics show). The storage can also be used as a slower but still relatively quick alternative to RAM (swap) when needed. That was true on systems back in 2009, but swap was really slow. This means capacity is only part of the story. While storage capacity appeared to stagnate, storage capability drastically improved.

That idea is also clear from the processor speed comparison. GHz doubled, but due to more cores, the actual performance (at least on benchmarks) increased dramatically. Think of the storage as doing something akin to adding more CPUs/cores.

Also, let's say storage increased the same as RAM -- I'll do both 7X and 12X increases. That would be the base model Air having a 2 or 3 TB SSD. Could Apple include that? Yes. And keep the base price $1000? Maybe, but there would be much smaller margins and profitability.

Storage needs are not that high for most people. That's not an excuse, it's simply reality with so much being 'cloud' based now.

 

[CraigJDuffy]

It's an atrocious analogy, which reeks of desperation.

Cars wouldn't benefit from any additional wheels (tyre proxy) today - if they would then we would have seen a manufacturer produce a model with more wheels. Amongst car owners, there is no demand or clamour for a six-wheeled car.

By contrast, Mac customers or potential Mac customers are clamouring for more base storage. We'd also all benefit from increased base storage on Macs today as many apps and media have ballooned in size over the past 10 years. So has the OS, which takes up a not inconsiderable amount of space on current base storage entry-level Macs.

I never claimed it was a good analogy.

I’m not clamouring for more base storage. 256 is already plenty more than enough for me as it is for the thousands who are purchasing the base model quite happily.

Obviously more storage is never a bad thing, but if it came at increased cost then I’d rather go without it.


I’d actually argue apps are smaller than ever. I could get by doing my entire job with nothing but Safari and web apps which was not true in 2009.

 

[Arctic Moose]

Obviously more storage is never a bad thing, but if it came at increased cost then I’d rather go without it.

I would be fine with 256 GB as the base storage if the upgrades were reasonably priced. However, if the upgrades were reasonably priced, Apple could just use 512 GB as the base configuration because whatever the additional cost, if any, would probably be offset by the reduced number of SKUs.

The solution "just get an external SSD" (which is always brought up as a response to the upgrade price nonsense) is an absolutely terrible user experience for a laptop, which I think is something Apple should care about.

Perhaps this is a non-issue because Apple's laptop customers simply don't mind paying extra, I don't know.

I do know that I personally very grumpily pay for 4 TB, and would easily pay even more for 8 TB if the cost had been within some sort of reasonable bounds. In fact, if RAM and storage upgrades were reasonably priced, I would most likely buy a new laptop every year instead of every 3-4 years.