Will 16GB of Memory Finally Come Standard Alongside the M3 Chip?

[Analog Kid]

Of course. Why wouldn’t it be?

Because the whole premise of this thread (and so many others that are indistinguishable from it) is about what the "base" or "standard" memory configuration should be.

Looking at your posts in this thread, you've been pretty clear on what you mean, but most in this thread have not.

The message for them is: If it's about price, talk about price. Don't talk about how they shouldn't sell a particular configuration, or the utility or performance of a given configuration and then act confused when people respond to what you're saying rather than what you mean.

 

[JouniS]

And why is that? Could Best Buy do anything different to get access to Apple's whole product line?

A better question is would the want to sell custom configurations. Where is the profit in that?

Best Buy is not a small specialist store. They operate big stores that sell many different things. They buy devices in bulk, distribute them to stores, and try to sell them with minimal effort. Selling custom configurations takes a lot of effort relative to the sales volume. Serving people who want to buy them is not a good use of employee time in a big store like Best Buy.

Base models are the ones Apple is committed to delivering in volumes relevant to big retailers. Custom models are delivered on a best-effort basis, which is not good enough.

 

[Analog Kid]

What I see happening over and over again is people calling the low end configuration the "base" model (does Apple do that, I don't think they use that terminology) and then assume that Apple builds their pricing from there. That is not at all how it works. People should look at the sales weighted average as the "base" which, by definition must be above the lowest configuration. The proper way to look at the 8/256 isn't as the "base" model, but as the "discount" model.

There's no reason to believe making 16/512 the discount model will make it any cheaper, I would expect that would make the lowest priced Mac more expensive and might very well make it at least as expensive as the current 16/512 configuration. As a side effect it may also increase the cost of the higher configurations.

In addition, people are now arguing that BTO should be abolished and Apple should ship inventory to more retailers undermining Apple's production efficiency and leaving excess product in inventory when the product line changes over.

None of these things make the product any cheaper.

 

[Digitalguy]

What I see happening over and over again is people calling the low end configuration the "base" model (does Apple do that, I don't think they use that terminology) and then assume that Apple builds their pricing from there. That is not at all how it works. People should look at the sales weighted average as the "base" which, by definition must be above the lowest configuration. The proper way to look at the 8/256 isn't as the "base" model, but as the "discount" model.

There's no reason to believe making 16/512 the discount model will make it any cheaper, I would expect that would make the lowest priced Mac more expensive and might very well make it at least as expensive as the current 16/512 configuration. As a side effect it may also increase the cost of the higher configurations.

In addition, people are now arguing that BTO should be abolished and Apple should ship inventory to more retailers undermining Apple's production efficiency and leaving excess product in inventory when the product line changes over.

None of these things make the product any cheaper.

All this makes sense in a world where Apple is the only or preferred choice (so for people who dislike Windows or and entreched in Apple's ecosystem, which are probably over-represented in these forums).
In a world where MacOS is not considered, overall, any better than Windows, and/or where people have an Android phone, the value is compared to what Windows devices offer for similar RAM and storage configurations.
In these cases, Apple seems to offer value only with those "discounted" models, as soon as you need versions belonging to the BTO/CTO offering, the value proposion falls apart, particularly in desktops (e.g. comparing Mac Mini to Mini PCs with AMD chips) where battery life is not an advantage and where, on the Windows side, you have fully upgradable devices. In the laptop space, again considing people that are not biased in favor of Apple, it's more a matter of priorities (battery life vs features like cellular support, ultra low weight, pen support, etc.)

 

[unrigestered]

i agree that it can be seen this way: see let's say Phtoshop, which once had a cheap(er) "consumer" option for around €100 or so, while the full "professional" app was around. €1000 or more.

you got the same package in both, the only difference was that most options were simply locked if you entered the cheaper license key, but once upon a time when Apple products were still having user replaceable / upgradable RAM and hard drives, and they were offering upgrade options in their own shop: were those systems on heavy discount too and the higher specced systems with their "silly" price tags were actually the true value of the system, while anyone that could be arsed to get these RAM and storage upgrades somewhere else could make these configurations for WAY less?

the only difference is that you now have no other way but to pay those "silly Apple upgrade prices" if you are in need for more than the "base specs", which are simply not even close to justifiable with anything but "Apple Tax"(tm)
see monitor stands which are lacking in adjustability for $1000, computer wheels lacking brakes for $600, or simple USB erm, i mean Thunderbolt cables for a measly $80 or something like that

 

[Analog Kid]

All this makes sense in a world where Apple is the only or preferred choice (so for people who dislike Windows or and entreched in Apple's ecosystem, which are probably over-represented in these forums).
In a world where MacOS is not considered, overall, any better than Windows, and/or where people have an Android phone, the value is compared to what Windows devices offer for similar RAM and storage configurations.
In these cases, Apple seems to offer value only with those "discounted" models, as soon as you need versions belonging to the BTO/CTO offering, the value proposion falls apart, particularly in desktops (e.g. comparing Mac Mini to Mini PCs with AMD chips) where battery life is not an advantage and where, on the Windows side, you have fully upgradable devices. In the laptop space, again considing people that are not biased in favor of Apple, it's more a matter of priorities (battery life vs features like cellular support, ultra low weight, pen support, etc.)

You've written this like it's a response to what I said, but it appears totally disconnected. What does the bias of those participating in these forums mean about my statement that using more expensive components, removing the most discounted product from the lineup and adopting less efficient production and distribution will only serve to make products more expensive?

 

[Digitalguy]

You've written this like it's a response to what I said, but it appears totally disconnected. What does the bias of those participating in these forums mean about my statement that using more expensive components, removing the most discounted product from the lineup and adopting less efficient production and distribution will only serve to make products more expensive?

It means that Apple, excluding the discounted base models, offers rather poor hardware value, unless you value MacOS or the Apple ecosystem, and even then, people still (rightly) complain about the exhorbitant prices Apple charges for RAM and storage upgrades... The complaints can take the form of people wanting better specs at the same base/discounted prices or wanting the BTO model to disappear so that everything can be offered at the same discounts, or simply wanting to pay less exhoribitant prices for the RAM and storage they need. And all of that is fair. It does not make economic sense for Apple and there are enough fans ready to spend, so it won't change, but that doen't mean people should stop complaining, because the poor value is a reality.
Fortunately many people, most people actually, don't care about MacOS or the ecosystem, and go spend their money where they can get more value (and I made the example of the Ryzen mini pc vs a Mac Mini on that regard) and are not forced to pay those prices for those upgraded models.

 

[Analog Kid]

i agree that it can be seen this way

Agree what can be seen which way? If you don't use that handy little reply button in the lower right then we have no idea what you're responding to and the person you are responding to is never told you've replied making it very difficult to have a conversation.

you got the same package in both, the only difference was that most options were simply locked if you entered the cheaper license key, but once upon a time when Apple products were still having user replaceable / upgradable RAM and hard drives, and they were offering upgrade options in their own shop: were those systems on heavy discount too and the higher specced systems with their "silly" price tags were actually the true value of the system, while anyone that could be arsed to get these RAM and storage upgrades somewhere else could make these configurations for WAY less?

It's been a few pages since I've walked through this, so I'll do it again. Like every manufacturer, Apple looks at the volume weighted average selling price of their product line as the "price" of the computer. The discounted models are priced below that base price.

The cost of the machine is the cost of the memory plus the cost of everything else (processor, enclosure, display, etc...). The cost of upgrading the memory is more than the cost of the memory to Apple, so if the 16GB system is closer to the "base" price, and the 8GB system is $200 cheaper but the RAM doesn't cost $200 less then where does the additional discount come from? The only place it can: the rest of the system.

If they start charging relative to cost for the RAM upgrades, then they need to start charging relative to cost for the rest of the system, so they need to increase the price of the low priced units to make up for the fact that they have to decrease the price of the 24GB/2TB system.

In the days of yore that you look fondly back to, Apple differentiated their machines by more than just memory. You could buy different processor and GPU systems. The discounted systems were discounted because the system components were less capable.

Apple could continue to do that, they could cripple the CPU cache and clock rate like they did in the Intel days just to make you feel better about paying more for the "base" model in the middle of the line, but then the people who do only need 8GB for their daily needs would be suffering much slower single core CPU performance making their basic Web-and-Word tasks slower.

And it makes the overall system cost higher because Apple has more variants to design, source and maintain.

The approach Apple is taking really is the most cost effective, and also the most transparent. Every differentiated product line plays with margins this way, but it's typically obfuscated. It's interesting how people are reacting so negatively to that transparency...

the only difference is that you now have no other way but to pay those "silly Apple upgrade prices" if you are in need for more than the "base specs", which are simply not even close to justifiable with anything but "Apple Tax"(tm)
see monitor stands which are lacking in adjustability for $1000, computer wheels lacking brakes for $600, or simple USB erm, i mean Thunderbolt cables for a measly $80 or something like that

All 3 of the things you mention having no choice for have choices available...

 

[Analog Kid]

It means that Apple, excluding the discounted base models, offers rather poor hardware value, unless you value MacOS or the Apple ecosystem, and even then, people still (rightly) complain about the exhorbitant prices Apple charges for RAM and storage upgrades... The complaints can take the form of people wanting better specs at the same base/discounted prices or wanting the BTO model to disappear so that everything can be offered at the same discounts, or simply wanting to pay less exhoribitant prices for the RAM and storage they need. And all of that is fair. It does not make economic sense for Apple and there are enough fans ready to spend, so it won't change, but that doen't mean people should stop complaining, because the poor value is a reality.
Fortunately many people, most people actually, don't care about MacOS or the ecosystem, and go spend their money where they can get more value (and I made the example of the Ryzen mini pc vs a Mac Mini on that regard) and are not forced to pay those prices for those upgraded models.

Ah, so it wasn't addressing my comment it was just using my comment as a springboard to take a tangent about something else.

Still, replying to me makes me feel like I'm supposed to respond somehow but I'm not sure what to say to this-- you seem to have baked the solution right into your problem statement. If you don't see value in what Apple offers there are other choices. Ok, no disagreement from me on that.

 

[Digitalguy]

Ah, so it wasn't addressing my comment it was just using my comment as a springboard to take a tangent about something else.

Still, replying to me makes me feel like I'm supposed to respond somehow but I'm not sure what to say to this-- you seem to have baked the solution right into your problem statement. If you don't see value in what Apple offers there are other choices. Ok, no disagreement from me on that.

I think it does address to some extend what you said, but it doesn't matter, the points I made stand regardless.

 

[dmccloud]

I think it does address to some extend what you said, but it doesn't matter, the points I made stand regardless.

You really issued a series of opinions rather than statements of fact. And opinions can be argued and/or debated all day, every day. You even admit as much in your second sentence "...unless you value MacOS or the Apple ecosystem."

 

[Digitalguy]

You really issued a series of opinions rather than statements of fact. And opinions can be argued and/or debated all day, every day. You even admit as much in your second sentence "...unless you value MacOS or the Apple ecosystem."

Like everyone else here

 

[gpat]

Y'all, just pretend that the Macbook lineup starts from $1999 for the 14" Pro.
It's the best choice for the long run anyway.

 

[theorist9]

It means that Apple, excluding the discounted base models, offers rather poor hardware value, unless you value MacOS or the Apple ecosystem....Fortunately many people, most people actually, don't care about MacOS or the ecosystem, and go spend their money where they can get more value (and I made the example of the Ryzen mini pc vs a Mac Mini on that regard) and are not forced to pay those prices for those upgraded models.

Nope. Historically people bought Macs, and paid the extra money over equivalent PC hardware, specifically because they wanted to work in MacOS. That's always been the case. [What's changed now is that you have a subset of Mac users who got into Apple because of the iPhone, and are buying Macs for the "ecosystem" effect, which is different from having a specific preference for MacOS. But that's not a majority of Mac users.]

For most Mac users, performance is as much about the software as the hardware. Speaking for myself, I'm more productive, and have a far more pleasant user experience, working in MacOS than Windows (I currently use both). In that sense, a Windows PC will never be able to perform at the same level as the Mac, regardless of hardware. That's a lot of what you're paying for when you buy a Mac instead of a PC. Looking only at hardware misses this.

Thus, to my mind, Macs have always been the better value proposition, because being in an OS that is much more pleasant, and allows you to be much more productive, is worth far more than any spec.

That's not to say I'm unaware of the fact that Apple charges double what Dell does for RAM upgrades and, now that they've moved to non-upgradeable hardware (even for desktops), that makes Macs a worse hardware value than they used to be for those, like me, who use a lot of RAM. But my user experience counts for a lot, and thus Macs are still a better value for me, and many others, than PC's.

Interstingly, AS does improve Mac's hardware value for laptops (where RAM and storage were already fixed). If you're someone who wants high CPU performance when unplugged along with long battery life and quiet operation, there's no PC laptop that can match the Macs. I believe that AS still offers the highest SC speed (and most programs are single-threaded) of any mobile processor, and you can get that in something as light and small as an M2 Air. And, comparing the M2 Max on battery to any Intel or AMD mobile processor on battery, I believe the M2 Max trounces all of them.

 

[Digitalguy]

Nope. Historically people bought Macs, and paid the extra money over equivalent PC hardware, specifically because they wanted to work in MacOS. That's always been the case. [What's changed now is that you have a subset of Mac users who got into Apple because of the iPhone, and are buying Macs for the "ecosystem" effect, which is different from having a specific preference for MacOS. But that's not a majority of Mac users.]

For most Mac users, performance is as much about the software as the hardware. Speaking for myself, I'm more productive, and have a far more pleasant user experience, working in MacOS than Windows (I currently use both). In that sense, a Windows PC will never be able to perform at the same level as the Mac, regardless of hardware. That's a lot of what you're paying for when you buy a Mac instead of a PC. Looking only at hardware misses this.

Thus, to my mind, Macs have always been the better value proposition, because being in an OS that is much more pleasant, and allows you to be much more productive, is worth far more than any spec.

That's not to say I'm unaware of the fact that Apple charges double what Dell does for RAM upgrades and, now that they've moved to non-upgradeable hardware (even for desktops), that makes Macs a worse hardware value than they used to be for those, like me, who use a lot of RAM. But my user experience counts for a lot, and thus Macs are still a better value for me, and many others, than PC's.

Interstingly, AS does change the hardware value proposition for laptops. If you're someone who wants high CPU performance when unplugged along with long battery life and quiet operation, there's no PC laptop that can match the Macs. I believe that AS still offers the highest SC speed (and most programs are single-threaded) of any mobile processor, and you can get that in something as light and small as an M2 Air. And, comparing the M2 Max on battery to any Intel or AMD mobile processor on battery, I believe the M2 Max trounces all of them.

Historically yes, if you didn't care about MacOS and the ecosystem, Macs made no sense.
But precisely since Apple Silicon some Windows users (like me) have been considering Macs for the efficiency and the quiet operation. So it's no longer MacOS only. Rather some people get Apple Silicon despite the overall (subjectively) inferior experience with MacOS (just like your subjective better experience with it). Personally, while I bought a M1 Mac Mini, I gave up upgrading to M2 or buying a AS laptop not because of MacOS but because of value on the one hand (desktop) and lack of features on the other (cellular, weight and to some extent pen support).

 

[dmccloud]

Personally, while I bought a M1 Mac Mini, I gave up upgrading to M2 or buying a AS laptop not because of MacOS but because of value on the one hand (desktop) and lack of features on the other (cellular, weight and to some extent pen support).

I've never been a fan of touchscreens on a PC. I had a laptop that had a touchscreen several years ago, and I may have used the feature twice. In my mind, the usage paradigm for a machine running an OS such as MacOS, Windows, Linux, etc. is not touch-based. I know some people love the touchscreen, but it's not how I want to interact with or use my computers. While a touchscreen and pen support are great features on my iPad, I'd have little to no use for those on any laptop computer I own.

 

[theorist9]

In my mind, the usage paradigm for a machine running an OS such as MacOS, Windows, Linux, etc. is not touch-based.

While MacOS isn't touch-based, touchscreens make a lot of sense for some of the key applications within MacOS. For instance, many who teach Zoom classes supplemented their computers with Wacom tablets so they could annotate their PowerPoint slides as the lectured. I didn't have one, so I had to use the mouse, which is much more awkward if you want to add a freehand drawing. [I tried a Huion table, and it was so slow when using Zoom that I had to return it.]

If the MBP had a touch screen, you wouldn't need a separate tablet. But in order to be able to work this way, the MBP would have to at least open flat, or ideally be reversible, since it's uncomfortable to use a touch screen on a vertical surface.

 

[theorist9]

Historically yes, if you didn't care about MacOS and the ecosystem, Macs made no sense.
But precisely since Apple Silicon some Windows users (like me) have been considering Macs for the efficiency and the quiet operation. So it's no longer MacOS only. Rather some people get Apple Silicon despite the overall (subjectively) inferior experience with MacOS (just like your subjective better experience with it). Personally, while I bought a M1 Mac Mini, I gave up upgrading to M2 or buying a AS laptop not because of MacOS but because of value on the one hand (desktop) and lack of features on the other (cellular, weight and to some extent pen support).

I wasn't aware you preferred Windows.

Since that's unusual for this site, might I suggest that you preface your posts on this subject with something like: "I prefer Windows, so MacOS doesn't provide me extra value. Hence, for me, it's just about the hardware..." That provides missing context.

If you got an M2 Mini, how would you have spec'd it out, and what PC would you get it its place?

 

[Digitalguy]

I've never been a fan of touchscreens on a PC. I had a laptop that had a touchscreen several years ago, and I may have used the feature twice. In my mind, the usage paradigm for a machine running an OS such as MacOS, Windows, Linux, etc. is not touch-based. I know some people love the touchscreen, but it's not how I want to interact with or use my computers. While a touchscreen and pen support are great features on my iPad, I'd have little to no use for those on any laptop computer I own.

I don't particularly care about touch screens on a laptop either, that's why I didn't even mention. Pen support however is a plus since I do a lot of annotating in my work as a university teacher. Having said that it's not a deal breaker, that's why I said "to some extent". The deal breaker is lack of a cellular option on Macbooks. Since I got my 2 pounds Thinkpad Nano with cellular I could never go back to a laptop without cellular for on the go. My thinkpad doesn't have touch, but that's fine. The weight, same as my 12" Macbook, is a another great bonus I would have a hard time giving up....

 

[Analog Kid]

If the MBP had a touch screen, you wouldn't need a separate tablet. But in order to be able to work this way, the MBP would have to at least open flat, or ideally be reversible, since it's uncomfortable to use a touch screen on a vertical surface.

Yeah, I think this is the catch. The MBP would need to be configured like one of the "convertible" models like the Surface. Given the abysmal reliability record of the Surface, I'm not sure Apple would go that way to address a corner case.

I use my iPad as a tablet in SideCar mode, or as an input to Freeform. That can work, but it is another device...

 

[Digitalguy]

I wasn't aware you preferred Windows. In that case it makes sense that desktop PC's would provide you a better value than desktop Macs, under the conditions that you need a lot of RAM and/or a large SSD and/or a powerful GPU (and can give up some quietness and efficiency).

Since that's unusual for this site, might I suggest that you preface your posts on this subject with something like: "I prefer Windows, so MacOS doesn't provide me extra value. Hence, for me, it's just about the hardware..." That provides missing context.

I kind of did mention that in a past post, maybe not that clearly. Having said that my preference for Windows is not strong. I can live with MacOS, but I overall prefer Windows. Not only that, I need to run a couple of Windows only apps very often, so any Macs would need to run Parallels anyway.

One thing I am not ready to give up is quietness, and that's the main reason why I am interested in Apple Silicon. I don't need lot of CPU/GPU power on the go and if needed at home I have a desktop with a RTX 2070 super and a laptop with a 1660TI. But I rarely use those GPUs. I need RAM however, 16GB is tight for my use. And I like having at least 500GB SSDs or better 1TB (but I could live with external SSDs if necessary).
It's not easy to find a silent but still fast and cool Windows device, but they exist. But I still keep an eye on Apple Silicon, and if Apple can make a 2 pounds cellular Macbook I think I would stronly consider buying it.
As for the M1 Mini, I'll keep the one I have as a plex server and for some other things, but my main desktop will be a Windows one... I want upgradability.... But again I want a silent machine.

 

[theorist9]

Yeah, I think this is the catch. The MBP would need to be configured like one of the "convertible" models like the Surface. Given the abysmal reliability record of the Surface, I'm not sure Apple would go that way to address a corner case.

I use my iPad as a tablet in SideCar mode, or as an input to Freeform. That can work, but it is another device...

That may be specific to the Surface. What about other reversible models, like the Yoga?

If Apple added touch/pen support to its laptops, that usage might no longer be a corner case.

Not that I'm saying they should. Just playing with an idea.

 

[Analog Kid]

That may be specific to the Surface. What about other reversible models, like the Yoga?

If Apple added touch/pen support to its laptops, that usage might no longer be a corner case.

Not that I'm saying they should. Just playing with an idea.

I use my iPad with the magic keyboard thingy, and it's an ok experience. Not as good as a laptop, but better than the iPad alone when I have a lot of typing to do and don't have my laptop open (ie. on a plane). There's no point, for me, of folding a laptop flat and having to reach over the keyboard to use it. The convertible approach seems problematic-- I'm not familiar with the Yoga, but anything like this is going to have more moving parts and connections which are hard to make reliable.

There's been rumors, and weak ones at that, that Apple is looking at making the laptop a foldable display-- replacing the keyboard bed with an extended display. If they can make the keyboard less horrible than typing on the iPad glass, that might be ok-- sort of the opposite compromise to the iPad and magic keyboard.

 

[NotApplicable]

I don't see why it would need to

 

[theorist9]

It's not easy to find a silent but still fast and cool Windows device, but they exist. But I still keep an eye on Apple Silicon, and if Apple can make a 2 pounds cellular Macbook I think I would stronly consider buying it.

In that case you'll probably need to wait to see if they build a 12" MacBook, since the 13" M2 Air is 2.7 lbs. Why do you think Apple hasn't offered LTE in its laptops like it has in its iPads?

I read one article saying it's because with iOS Apple can control app cellular use, while it can't with MacOS, which could lead to some pissed off Mac customers whose data plans are rapidly used up. But that article was written several years ago, so even if it was correct at the time I've no idea how things have changed since then.

As for the M1 Mini, I'll keep the one I have as a plex server and for some other things, but my main desktop will be a Windows one... I want upgradability.... But again I want a silent machine.

I do appreciate the value of upgradeabilty. I have a pretty good idea of my RAM needs and buy what I need at the time—but sometimes projects change and RAM needs increase, and with my past Macs desktops I've been able to upgrade as needed. With AS I'll have to take my best guess at my future needs and potentially overbuy just in case.

Is that what you're looking for as well, or is it that you know you need 32 GB and don't like the upgrade price? If the latter, I am curious what PC desktop you'd buy in place of a 32 GB M2 Pro Mini, and how the pricing would compare.