Time for 1GB?

[illegalprelude]

Heres something ive been wondering about, mostly sense all the new Intel Macs have hit out (Minus Mac Pro) is that why dont all the units, maybe minus the MINI come with 1GB ram? This comes from my experience of working in the PC department at Best Buy and now most of our $1000 Desk Top HP's for example come with 2GB ram, all of our small Mac Mini wannabe HP's (Slim Line they call them heh) come with 1GB. Every single laptop we carry pretty much at $800+ come with 1GB ram.

I mean, if were really gonna drag the Mac Pro in to this, it should come with more then 1GB ram.

I know there is the whole thing of, well you can get it for cheaper so they dont force you to buy their ram but I dont buy that. Thats just to justify the reason of them coming with 512MB ram.

Plus, this isnt a battle of "well the $1000 HP still blows nuts" because I know it does

This comes to me really because alot of time, I try to push people out of the store and tell em to go to an Apple store with a few bits of sucess here and there (our BB dosent yet carry any Macs ) and to customers, you cant always explain OSX > XP deal, alot just look at specs and see the Intro MacBook is $1100 pretty much with 512 Ram. That just stomps them right there. Al Be It (sp on that? lol) I believe OSX is far more responsive with 512MB ram then XP or 2000 might be but with the push of the "were better at Video, Music, Pictures", I really do believe 1GB needs to be across the board and with the Intel transition, it would have been the perfect time.

IMHO, Apple is just being cheap and looking for even more of a profit turn around, mostly with the fact of knowing that the prices of the Intel chips drop way more and much faster then the Motorola Chips.

But yea, thoughts, comments, concerns?
Guh, at apple store today btw, I want that 30" so bad

 

[WildCowboy]

Apple has skimped on RAM for years. I feel like most of the PCs I see around start at 512 MB as well, but it's still not an excuse, particularly on the Intel machines that are still running things under Rosetta...they really need a minimum of 1 GB to be functional.

 

[Zwhaler]

Well you have to realize that 1GB is more than enough for many people.

People who just check their email and do occasional web browsing don't want to have to spend lots of money on unneeded RAM. I am typing this on a PC with 512 ram, and I know I could use more than that but I live with it. Although, on my next mac I will be getting 1 GB.

 

[illegalprelude]

Well you have to realize that 1GB is more than enough for many people.

People who just check their email and do occasional web browsing don't want to have to spend lots of money on unneeded RAM. I am typing this on a PC with 512 ram, and I know I could use more than that but I live with it. Although, on my next mac I will be getting 1 GB.

I would agree with you on that if the MacBook started at $899 not $1099 and the iMac at $999 not $1299 or the MacBook Pro at $1300 and not $1999. For the price you pay for those machines, I think 1GB of ram is damn well due

 

[iMeowbot]

The Windows machines are beefing up the RAM in anticipation of Vista, so there is a method to their madness.

The Macintels would really be fine with a 512 MB base, if the software situation was a little more mature and Rosetta was something that fewer people needed to use.

With the plugins affecting most people (Flash Player and Flip4Mac) out in universal versions now, is 512 maybe okay again for the mainstream iLife user?

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

First of all, I do agree with what you say. Moreover, it is obvious that Apple are making a lot of money on those customers that actually add more RAM and pay Apples slightly inflated prices. However...
Considering Apples price on RAM, don't you think that the increased price on a Mac could hurt the bottomline? I at least can see would-be customers backing down from buying a Mac just because the machine became too expensive with more RAM.

 

[illegalprelude]

The Windows machines are beefing up the RAM in anticipation of Vista, so there is a method to their madness.

The Macintels would really be fine with a 512 MB base, if the software situation was a little more mature and Rosetta was something that fewer people needed to use.

With the plugins affecting most people (Flash Player and Flip4Mac) out in universal versions now, is 512 maybe okay again for the mainstream iLife user?

The vista anticipation is indeed true and like I stated, OSX is damn more responsvie and less of a ram hog then XP is and for alot of people, 512 might be enough but with the current add campaign and the premium price, I believe 1GB ram should be there. Like I said, some people just look at the stats, some people wanna switch and wanna do all their movies and music and photos, iLife with tons of photo's and 512 ram? Meh...iMovie with 512 ram?

I just again, for the price of those units, 1GB ram is justified and needed really. Again, is the MacBook Pro aiming for web browsers? at $1999, still comes with 512 Ram!

 

[WildCowboy]

I just again, for the price of those units, 1GB ram is justified and needed really. Again, is the MacBook Pro aiming for web browsers? at $1999, still comes with 512 Ram!

But MBPs are targeted towards pro users, who are usually either savvy enough to get their RAM elsewhere or buying through their business where overpriced RAM from Apple is often worth the simplicity of a single transaction. In a weird sort of way, I'm actually okay with Apple providing a minimum amount of RAM in pro models in order to keep the base price low but having them provide a higher amount of RAM in consumer models where the buyer is less likely to be knowledgeable about the need to upgrade RAM and possibilities for doing so.

 

[cbetta]

I think the main point what we are all saying is this: a minimum of 512mb leaves the option to grow, instead of taking that option away by default.

 

[plinkoman]

However...
Considering Apples price on RAM, don't you think that the increased price on a Mac could hurt the bottomline?

well, it's not like apple needs to charge that much on the ram. They could probably sell ram for half as much and still turn a profit with those prices. I doubt they would have any trouble profiting off of a macbook if they dumped an extra 512MB in there.

 

[illegalprelude]

Ok, here is the deal, I can get 512 ram for like $70 or 1GB for $90, (alot of times, every way cheaper) im sure this means apple can get it for ATLEAST 3/4? Now, dont tell me their now making sweet profit in each of those units that they cannot provide 1GB ram.

It comes down to the point of where these units are priced. I dont expect the $499 Dell Insperon or $599 HP bundle to have 512 ram but when your paying the prices on these units verses what PC's cost and the mad profits that they take on each machine, the consumer deserves 1GB of ram.

I think the main point what we are all saying is this: a minimum of 512mb leaves the option to grow, instead of taking that option away by default.

what? Its like paying for a full bottle of wine and only getting half for the sake of "in case you didnt wanna drink it all"

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Ok, here is the deal, I can get 512 ram for like $70 or 1GB for $90, (alot of times, every way cheaper) im sure this means apple can get it for ATLEAST 3/4? Now, dont tell me their now making sweet profit in each of those units that they cannot provide 1GB ram.

It comes down to the point of where these units are priced. I dont expect the $499 Dell Insperon or $599 HP bundle to have 512 ram but when your paying the prices on these units verses what PC's cost and the mad profits that they take on each machine, the consumer deserves 1GB of ram.



what? Its like paying for a full bottle of wine and only getting half for the sake of "in case you didnt wanna drink it all"

As I said, I agree with you, but I also believe Apple have spent some time investigating this issue and come to the conclusion that insufficient RAM in stock machines and high priced BTO RAM make the highest profit.
This conclusion might be incorrect. But regradless if the name of the company is Apple or MS, the main objective for any company is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders.

 

[iMeowbot]

One number that seems to have stayed very stable in the Apple reports is their gross margin across all product lines (they bunch hardware, software and services together for this), a little under 30%. It's doesn't seem that they're really being any more or less cheap/generous now than they have been. I'm sure the base configurations will change when (and no sooner than) the cost falls in line with that magic number.

 

[swingerofbirch]

As I said, I agree with you, but I also believe Apple have spent some time investigating this issue and come to the conclusion that insufficient RAM in stock machines and high priced BTO RAM make the highest profit.
This conclusion might be incorrect. But regradless if the name of the company is Apple or MS, the main objective for any company is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders.

I agree with you that the point is to make money for the shareholders. I am one (albeit a very small one). But I don't believe Apple is infallible. They have been stubborn about issues in the past that have hurt them that they relinquished on which helped them. Recently they have made a good number of concessions in order to grow market share: a two button mouse, Intel chips, IMO more reasonably priced computers, giving out software to let Windows run on a Mac, and (gasp) advertising the Mac platform!


If they increased the RAM in each machine and did not increase the price of the computer, it could be considered a concession. This would lower the profit margin a bit. However, a company with its shareholders in mind could still make this move, if they believed, as I do that better configured machines at good prices will equal greater volume of sales, which in and of itself is only a good thing for Apple and its shareholders.

 

[illegalprelude]

I agree with you that the point is to make money for the shareholders. I am one (albeit a very small one). But I don't believe Apple is infallible. They have been stubborn about issues in the past that have hurt them that they relinquished on which helped them. Recently they have made a good number of concessions in order to grow market share: a two button mouse, Intel chips, IMO more reasonably priced computers, giving out software to let Windows run on a Mac, and (gasp) advertising the Mac platform!


If they increased the RAM in each machine and did not increase the price of the computer, it could be considered a concession. This would lower the profit margin a bit. However, a company with its shareholders in mind could still make this move, if they believed, as I do that better configured machines at good prices will equal greater volume of sales, which in and of itself is only a good thing for Apple and its shareholders.

This comes exactly to my point from working retail for a long time. People look at the Tag and say

Gateway
$799
1GB Ram
60GB HDD
Core Solo

Sony
$999
1GB Ram
60GB HDD
Core Solo

"jee, im just paying for the sony name, gimme a gateway" No longer does the question of Weight, LCD Quality, Design, Comfort, Quality Parts etc set in. Same specs, lower price wins.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I agree with you that the point is to make money for the shareholders. I am one (albeit a very small one). But I don't believe Apple is infallible. They have been stubborn about issues in the past that have hurt them that they relinquished on which helped them. Recently they have made a good number of concessions in order to grow market share: a two button mouse, Intel chips, IMO more reasonably priced computers, giving out software to let Windows run on a Mac, and (gasp) advertising the Mac platform!


If they increased the RAM in each machine and did not increase the price of the computer, it could be considered a concession. This would lower the profit margin a bit. However, a company with its shareholders in mind could still make this move, if they believed, as I do that better configured machines at good prices will equal greater volume of sales, which in and of itself is only a good thing for Apple and its shareholders.

The PPC->x86 transition has made it much simpler for the consumer to compare computers from different manufacturers. Still, any dollar for dollar hardware comparison will most likely come out to Apples disadvantage.
Most people forget that Apple computers come bundled with a lot of software that isn't included in windows machines. Furthermore, people also seem to forget that you dont need a anti-virus programs for Macs, that besides from costing you a fortune every year also will slow down the factual computing power significantly.
Hence, I think Apple should avoid selling hardware configurations too close to their competitors, and instead price their machines in the same ballpark as other manufacturers.

 

[Zwhaler]

I still don't really understand the point of this argument. If you want 1GB, get 1GB. Just because 512 is available to you doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

 

[WildCowboy]

I still don't really understand the point of this argument. If you want 1GB, get 1GB. Just because 512 is available to you doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

It's for the consumer who doesn't know how much RAM they'll need. If the OS bogs down with the stock 512 MB they got, they won't be pleased. They'll just blame the Mac for being a bad machine or they'll be pissed that they have to shell out more cash for RAM.

 

[iTwitch]

I would agree with you on that if the MacBook started at $899 not $1099 and the iMac at $999 not $1299 or the MacBook Pro at $1300 and not $1999. For the price you pay for those machines, I think 1GB of ram is damn well due

I'll bet that Apple's getting the profit they require at these price points and additional anything would cut into that profit.

 

[illegalprelude]

The PPC->x86 transition has made it much simpler for the consumer to compare computers from different manufacturers. Still, any dollar for dollar hardware comparison will most likely come out to Apples disadvantage.
Most people forget that Apple computers come bundled with a lot of software that isn't included in windows machines. Furthermore, people also seem to forget that you dont need a anti-virus programs for Macs, that besides from costing you a fortune every year also will slow down the factual computing power significantly.
Hence, I think Apple should avoid selling hardware configurations too close to their competitors, and instead price their machines in the same ballpark as other manufacturers.

Exactly! Before, when units were with the Motorla chips, although customers didnt know what it was, it was easier for me at some ways to sell them into a Mac because they couldnt do a direct comparison. So it was kind of up to me in a way to sell them into it and they trusting me that their 1.6ghz PowerBook was as speedy as the P4 Laptop.

Now, its Core Duo across the board. and people just compare the prices. I cannot sit there and try to say well "now your not going to need Anti-Virus or Spyware so thats $100/ year you save" etc etc.

It's for the consumer who doesn't know how much RAM they'll need. If the OS bogs down with the stock 512 MB they got, they won't be pleased. They'll just blame the Mac for being a bad machine or they'll be pissed that they have to shell out more cash for RAM.

exactly. Mostly at a time where the "switch" campaign is going on, alot of people are just not educated about the Mac and with a simple problem, it will turn them away. For example, you cannot imagine with how many of my employee's, I argue with about something a Mac can do but they dont own a Mac but take the position against it that it cannot do it. like "yea, most of our accessories wont work with Macs" and im like dude, wtf? take any of these and OS just picks them up asap with no install. Employee "no they dont"

Same thing with Ram tail. They hear how great Mac is. "Wow, I can edit my photo's, do family pictures, store all my music" Take home the unit with 512 Ram and that is not gonna be enough to do that and your gonna notice iMovie crashing on you possibly and there goes their whole OSX expeirence.

I'll bet that Apple's getting the profit they require at these price points and additional anything would cut into that profit.

I dont doubt it but you gotta take a little to gain some right? I mean for the love of god, take out the Web Cams. I love the idea but for 80% of people, it is a retarded thing they will never use and im sure a built in web cam costs a hell of alot more then offering 1GB instead of 512mb.