Why do so few deals include higher RAM configurations?

[DominikHoffmann]

The vast majority of deals and sales of MacBooks are only for the 8-GB RAM configurations. Why is that? I always advise that my clients purchase a system with at least 16 GB, if not for anything else, then just for the computer to be more future-proof. I like to alert them to when suitable systems go on sale, but it happens very rarely.

 

[Bigwaff]

The vast majority of deals and sales of MacBooks are only for the 8-GB RAM configurations. Why is that?

Price. ‘Nuff said.

 

[DominikHoffmann]

Price. ‘Nuff said.

Not for me, unfortunately? Would you mind explaining?

 

[za9ra22]

The reason is that there is no real incentive to compete for above-base models - meaning there isn't enough profit in the much lower volume of sales these attract over the 8GB units.

At least, that would be the case in the MBA, because the typical market for these are users who mostly need a base-level resource for the tasks they need, or who are too bound to cost to think further upmarket. In the MPB (and desktops), I suspect the upgraded models sell at least a little more volume, so you'd see a bit more competition in probably more marginal discounts.

In a broader market sense, I also suspect that knowing the 8GB models will sell far better, third-party sellers such as Best Buy in the US, buy the base model in much larger quantity - meaning greater incentive to discount prices to undercut other sellers and Apple.

 

[BrianBaughn]

In a broader market sense, I also suspect that knowing the 8GB models will sell far better, third-party sellers such as Best Buy in the US, buy the base model in much larger quantity - meaning greater incentive to discount prices to undercut other sellers and Apple.

Probably that…and the potential for the old bait and switch for customers that come into the store.

 

[za9ra22]

Probably that…and the potential for the old bait and switch for customers that come into the store.

Bait and switch is a lot harder to gain traction in with online sales, though in practical terms this is certain to have been a factor in the past. It does require sales staff though, and with retail today, those are a lot harder to find!

 

[RobertPS]

Historically, this had to do with the available standard retail configurations.

 

[AZhappyjack]

For the most part, retailers offer discounts on the items that they have in stock. Most of the Mac retailers only stock a couple configurations of each model. Since a lot of the higher configurations are BTO, there's no overstock to "move out".

 

[AZhappyjack]

Probably that…and the potential for the old bait and switch for customers that come into the store.

It's not necessarily "bait and switch" to offer multiple configurations, and for the sales clerk to point out the benefits of higher configurations. There is nothing wrong with a salesman showing you a higher config, and that is not "bait and switch".

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

More units in stock at retailers of any specific product configurations means higher likelihood of that specific configuration going on sale.

I also believe that the M3 MBA line-up is the first to even see a pre-configured model that features 16GBs of RAM.

In other words, if all of Apple's laptops and desktops all came with 16GB RAM as standard, even in the cheapest, sold-at-retail-configuration, then you'd see just as many sales for those as you see for the <16GB RAM sold-at-retail-configurations.

Apple and retailers also make a lot more on you long-term if you buy 2-3 Macs over the next 10 years vs. just 1-2.

So, obviously, there's a lot to gain in revenue long-term from having you think a brand new but discounted, baseline-configuration model of the latest Apple computer is good value, and something you urgently need to buy because it's presented as a time-limited deal when it's really just a extremely-limited-value deal.

 

[Jim Lahey]

The entire 8GB base paradigm is becoming tiresome when speccing up custom configs at Apple MSRP against discounted base builds available elsewhere. It's just one trade-off and compromise after the other until I give up for anther month. Yes there's many arguments that can rationalise it if defending corporations is your business, but it's little short of straight up anti-consumer at this stage and really spoils the buying process for what is purported to be a premium brand.

macOS can swallow 8GB just breathing. There's no excuse for it anymore except profit leading the product and the user instead of following both.

 

[Populus]

The reason is that there is no real incentive to compete for above-base models - meaning there isn't enough profit in the much lower volume of sales these attract over the 8GB units.

In a broader market sense, I also suspect that knowing the 8GB models will sell far better, third-party sellers such as Best Buy in the US, buy the base model in much larger quantity - meaning greater incentive to discount prices to undercut other sellers and Apple.

Yep, I agree. With the new M3 MBA there’s a 16GB configuration that is not a BTC/BTO purchase, so that should better the chances of finding those machines discounted at retailers.

If this is still not happening, like OP says, then I’m afraid the reasons you point are behind that. Those 8GB models bought in large quantities and with an added discount are much more profitable than much fewer sales of a more expensive model where they cannot have the same margins.

macOS can swallow 8GB just breathing. There's no excuse for it anymore except profit leading the product and the user instead of following both.

Exactly.

I’m really hoping the day macs come with 12 or 16GB of RAM by default, not to buy the base machine (because I’ll still get a 32GB machine when the day to retire my Intel Mac mini comes), but because in the long run, that will give even base models much more breathing room and macOS will be able to evolve quicker.

If today’s 8GB machines are going to have 5-6 years of good operating system support (maybe M_ pro machines will have longer support because of the minimum 16BG of RAM), then we won’t see groundbreaking improvements on the operating system until 5 years down the road, when Apple will start taking advantage of the increased base memory. And by then, 12GB will feel just “enough“ for basic tasks just like today’s 8GB of RAM.

Those are my 2cents, of course many people will disagree but thankfully I cannot be downvoted here by those who swear marvels on their 8GB Apple Silicon computers. And yeah, I said specifically Apple Silicon computers because in my experience (I have an 8GB Intel machine and I’ve used 8GB M1 and M2 machines), those more modern computers eat RAM like no Intel machine does, at least the old Intel CPUs from 2014-2015.

 

[AlixSPQR]

Apple's 8/256-policy is extremely profitable. Too many Apple polishers out there. But I'm not buying it.

 

[dominiongamma]

When Apple fans keep buying these then Apple sees no reason to change tactics

 

[za9ra22]

macOS can swallow 8GB just breathing.

Really not true. Both on my M1 and M3 MBA models, RAM usage ticks around 6GB, with a number of apps open, including a few Safari tabs, a 2500-page .docx document in LibreOffice, a movie AirPlaying from QT to an Apple TV, and one downloading in 4K Video Downloader, plus email.

macOS is highly capable of scaling to available RAM. In a 16GB system, the exact same activities takes between 12 and 13GB.

As has been pointed out previously, all modern operating systems do this.

 

[Jim Lahey]

macOS is highly capable of scaling to available RAM. In a 16GB system, the exact same activities takes between 12 and 13GB.

Yes quite. And why does the system with more available RAM use more RAM for the same activities? Because it improves responsiveness to additional load. In other words it improves performance. But yes you're right, my comment was certainly borderline. In any case it's not really the thrust of my point. That argument has been done to death over and over elsewhere. I just find the 8/16/MSRP/reseller dynamic adds unacceptable friction and indecision to the buying experience.

 

[za9ra22]

Yes quite. And why does the system with more available RAM use more RAM for the same activities? Because it improves responsiveness to additional load. In other words it improves performance. But yes you're right, my comment was certainly borderline. In any case it's not really the thrust of my point. That argument has been done to death over and over elsewhere. I just find the 8/16/MSRP/reseller dynamic adds unacceptable friction and indecision to the buying experience.

My turn: Yes quite.

I agree on the point about the 8/16 differential being largely profit driven, and this kind of product and pricing strategy undermines their credibility in the market, and unnecessarily complicates both the customer purchasing decision and reseller's stock profiling options. It's difficult to see this as anything more than cynical marketing on Apple's part.

 

[Jim Lahey]

My turn: Yes quite.

I agree on the point about the 8/16 differential being largely profit driven, and this kind of product and pricing strategy undermines their credibility in the market, and unnecessarily complicates both the customer purchasing decision and reseller's stock profiling options. It's difficult to see this as anything more than cynical marketing on Apple's part.

Really I feel it's the MSRP vs. Reseller dynamic that is the real problem here. A good example is the 14" 8GB MacBook Pro M3. If you want 16GB then you have to buy it direct from Apple at MSRP. But then it's more or less the same price as the 18GB M3 Pro from a reseller. Great! Get the M3 Pro! Right? Well yes and no. If you wanted Space Gray and 22 hour battery life then suddenly it sucks because you need to buy a worse value product.

Now some may say that discounting resellers aren't Apple's problem, but I disagree. They surely have leverage over who sells what and for how much. They allow this to go on because it suits them and their partners. The whole thing is very much under their control. We know why they do it, but it doesn't mean we have to like it, and it definitely does undermine the brand. They're clearly acting in bad faith at the expense of their users.

 

[za9ra22]

Really I feel it's the MSRP vs. Reseller dynamic that is the real problem here. A good example is the 14" 8GB MacBook Pro M3. If you want 16GB then you have to buy it direct from Apple at MSRP. But then it's more or less the same price as the 18GB M3 Pro from a reseller. Great! Get the M3 Pro! Right? Well yes and no. If you wanted Space Gray and 22 hour battery life then suddenly it sucks because you need to buy a worse value product.

Now some may say that discounting resellers aren't Apple's problem, but I disagree. They surely have leverage over who sells what and for how much. They allow this to go on because it suits them and their partners. The whole thing is very much under their control. We know why they do it, but it doesn't mean we have to like it, and it definitely does undermine the brand. They're clearly acting in bad faith at the expense of their users.

I think Apple's only real priority is the market of 'typical' buyers who predominantly pick on cost priorities first, and feature/specification second. They know those who are going to stumble on the kind of choice you identify are a minority, and largely already sold on an Apple product, just not exactly which, so don't have to cater to their selection process much, if at all.

The discounters aren't entirely in Apple's control in many places. In the past they've had their knuckles wrapped badly at attempts to control resale prices by withholding stock, so even as they felt that discounted sales undermined the brand, these days they seem likely to actually use these resellers as a way to manage product flow.

They're no doubt very successful at it, but I can't say it leaves a good taste.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Really I feel it's the MSRP vs. Reseller dynamic that is the real problem here. A good example is the 14" 8GB MacBook Pro M3. If you want 16GB then you have to buy it direct from Apple at MSRP.

The 16GB M3 MBP has regularly been on sale for $1499 ($300 off) from a couple of retailers.

In fact, you can purchase it right now (as of this posting) for $1499: https://www.connection.com/product/...-16gb-512gb-70w-space-gray/z1c80001d/41770545

 

[Jim Lahey]

The 16GB M3 MBP has regularly been on sale for $1499 ($300 off) from a couple of retailers.

In fact, you can purchase it right now (as of this posting) for $1499: https://www.connection.com/product/...-16gb-512gb-70w-space-gray/z1c80001d/41770545

Thanks but I don't live in the US. Never found a 16GB M3 on discount at a reseller where I live. They're all 8GB. Or certainly every time I've ever looked.

 

[Rychiar]

Cus apple doesn’t make higher ram configurations…just higher storage. Anything else is BTO. If you want any potential deals on BTO check B&H cus they stock them

 

[Sensible Apple fan]

The vast majority of deals and sales of MacBooks are only for the 8-GB RAM configurations. Why is that? I always advise that my clients purchase a system with at least 16 GB, if not for anything else, then just for the computer to be more future-proof. I like to alert them to when suitable systems go on sale, but it happens very rarely.

Dear Hoffman,
apple may not like to sell a Mac which doesn’t break in 10 years …
8Gb RAM exactly does that.
the OSX system may use 4-6 Gb RAM leaving little space for user application.
once your applications need More Ram, it moves to SWAP file. This degrades the SSD much faster …
the more u use, the more you age it.
since replacing the SSD on a Mac is a nightmare, you are given an option to upgrade or repair the old one up to 70-80% sometimes 100 % of the cost of a new one.

The vast majority of deals and sales of MacBooks are only for the 8-GB RAM configurations. Why is that? I always advise that my clients purchase a system with at least 16 GB, if not for anything else, then just for the computer to be more future-proof. I like to alert them to when suitable systems go on sale, but it happens very rarely.

 

[za9ra22]

If today’s 8GB machines are going to have 5-6 years of good operating system support (maybe M_ pro machines will have longer support because of the minimum 16BG of RAM), then we won’t see groundbreaking improvements on the operating system until 5 years down the road, when Apple will start taking advantage of the increased base memory. And by then, 12GB will feel just “enough“ for basic tasks just like today’s 8GB of RAM.

I don't think that one thing follows from the other.

Aside from the fact that Apple can and will undoubtedly have plans to extend the feature set of macOS, and can hardly suppress these developments in such a way, all they have to do is build in more flexibility in macOS modularity. That would allow unused modules to be unspotted from active memory so that other modules can be slotted in their place.

And even that assumes that they won't do something such as unload some of the embedded software overhead we see in use today.

The thing that strikes me as quite pivotal in this is the fact that Apple do, obviously have a roadmap for where macOS is, principally at least, going. Yet they still build 8GB base models today, when bumping that to 12GB would incur hardly any notable cost difference. They are not a willfully stupid company, so it can really only be that their plans include macOS developments in the context of an existing and continuing 8GB base level of RAM. Realistically, they can't avoid that.

Dear Hoffman,
apple may not like to sell a Mac which doesn’t break in 10 years …
8Gb RAM exactly does that.
the OSX system may use 4-6 Gb RAM leaving little space for user application.
once your applications need More Ram, it moves to SWAP file. This degrades the SSD much faster …
the more u use, the more you age it.
since replacing the SSD on a Mac is a nightmare, you are given an option to upgrade or repair the old one up to 70-80% sometimes 100 % of the cost of a new one.

Plenty of discussion here already about macOS RAM use, so there's no point in rehearsing those arguments you can read for yourself if you're interested.

But 'wearing out of the SSD due to swap use' is old hat and largely proven untrue. Firstly, SSDs have been in use for several years in computers now, and where are the failures? Secondly, engineering studies have shown SSDs are more reliable, by a factor of as much as 10x in comparison to hard drives (which also didn't much fail due to swap use), thirdly, SSDs are in common use in server environments where swap levels are often very high, but don't cause problems, and would hardly even be in use in such systems if there was such an inherent failure looming, and fourthly, life expectancy of SSDs is in the petabytes - meaning that for most use cases, an SSD will outlast the rest of the system.

One factor that does matter is SSD capacity. Studies do show that the smaller the capacity, the faster it will fail - thought still in the region of around a petabyte for current 256GB SSDs.

 

[picpicmac]

But I'm not buying it.

Then don't buy it.

This is not hard.

If you don't like something don't buy it.

If you have someone over you (like an employer or school) telling you that you need to buy it then I guess you need to buy it.

Whining over base configs (from whatever manufacturer) is tiresome. And useless.