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

[Digitalguy]

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.

I think 13" is feasible, if Lenovo did it with my 16.10 13" Thinkpad (mind you, not 13.3), why couldn't Apple do it? Or at least remove the bezels in the 12" Retina (I have it too) and make it 12.5"
I don't buy the idea that celluar is an issue, it works fine on Windows and things like Onedrive pause syncing by default to avoid these issues (and ask you permission for syincing), but personally I have 3 SIM cards with ulimited data for $10 each (2 of them even include some roaming data) so no cap for me...

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.

I need 32 for RAM, no more, but I want to be able to add a lot of internal storage so I don't need to rely on cloud on the go (I could sync my entire 5TB Onedrive business locally + my 2TB Dropbox plus). I already have a 1TB 980pro, a 4TB WD SN850X and another 4TB 2.5" SSD (and might even buy a 8TB one not that they cost around $400).
So far the candidate is a mini PC with a Ryzen 6000 chip frome Morefine that is basically as silent as the M1 mini even under load (according to tests) and can take 2 NVMes drives + a 2.5" one, DDR5 (I would put 32), has 2.5G LAN (like most modern mini PC). The barebone price is $469 + $130 for RAM + my storage (I spent $90 for the samsung, $320 for the WD and $250 for the 2.5 Samsung ssd for a total of 9TB of SSDs)
So in total I would "spend" $1260, less than the base M2 pro Mini, for a silent Mini PC with 32GB RAM and 9TB of interal SSD (5TB PCIe 4 and 4TB SATA). And this thing even has power delivery via USB 4 (in additional to the barrel connector for power), so I could even run it from a 100W USB C power bank (which I have).
A M2 mini with 32GB RAM and 8TB storage would cost a fortune
However my desktop is still working fine, so I am not in a hurry and might wait till Ryzen 8000 or 9000 before replacing it with a Mini PC (I want to be able to carry my desktop when I travel, in addition to my laptop, like I sometime do now with my M1 mini, and have everything locally with me so I don't want a tower anymore)

 

[theorist9]

I need 32 for RAM, no more, but I want to be able to add a lot of internal storage so I don't need to rely on cloud on the go (I could sync my entire 5TB Onedrive business locally + my 2TB Dropbox plus). I already have a 1TB 980pro, a 4TB WD SN850X and another 4TB 2.5" SSD (and might even buy a 8TB one not that they cost around $400).
So far the candidate is a mini PC with a Ryzen 6000 chip frome Morefine that is basically as silent as the M1 mini even under load (according to tests) and can take 2 NVMes drives + a 2.5" one, DDR5 (I would put 32), has 2.5G LAN (like most modern mini PC). The barebone price is $469 + $130 for RAM + my storage (I spent $90 for the samsung, $320 for the WD and $250 for the 2.5 Samsung ssd for a total of 9TB of SSDs)
So in total I would "spend" $1260, less than the base M2 pro Mini, for a silent Mini PC with 32GB RAM and 9TB of interal SSD (5TB PCIe 4 and 4TB SATA). And this thing even has power delivery via USB 4 (in additional to the barrel connector for power), so I could even run it from a 100W USB C power bank (which I have).
A M2 mini with 32GB RAM and 8TB storage would cost a fortune
However my desktop is still working fine, so I am not in a hurry and might wait till Ryzen 8000 or 9000 before replacing it with a Mini PC (I want to be able to carry my desktop when I travel, in addition to my laptop, like I sometime do now with my M1 mini, and have everything locally with me so I don't want a tower anymore)

Yeah, you have a specific situation that makes it impossible for Apple Silicon Macs to complete, because you need a high-end amount of internal SSD storage (9 TB) combined with a relatively high-end mount of RAM (32 GB), but your performance needs are relatively modest (half your storage is going to be SATA-based, and you priced out your build with a modest processor—the Ryzen 6000 series' SC speeds are far slower than even the base M1's). With Apple you'd need to significantly overbuy on performance just to get the RAM and SSD capacity you need.

A fairer value comparison, since half your SSD needs are SATA, would be to buy an M2 Pro Mini with a 4 TB SSD (12-core CPU, 19-core GPU, 32 GB RAM, 4 TB SSD = $3200) and add a 4 TB WD My Passport external SSD ($300) (faster than an internal SATA SSD), for a total of $3500, instead of $4,400 for the M2 Mini with an internal 8 TB SSD. And then compare that with a silent PC with the same total SSD and RAM, and whose processer, GPU, and connectivity equals the performance of the M2 Pro (the Intel i5-13600K/KF CPU and AMD RX6500 XT GPU seem to work). That comparison wouldn't be relevant for you, but it would be a fairer value comparison.

When I do that on Dell's site for a non-silent PC, I get $2500 (with a 4 TB SSD; they don't have an internal 4 TB option for a SATA drive). So that's $2,800 for the Dell vs. $3,500 for the Mac (where I've added $300 to each for the external 4 TB SSD).
And what you get for the extra $700 is quietness, efficiency, compactness, and much better customer service. And light weight! You mentioned you wanted to carry it when you travel. You can do that with the M2 Pro Mini, which weighs only 2.8 lbs. By contrast, the Alienware weights about 35 lbs! [Dell says the i5-13600KF requires liquid cooling.]

How much does the Morefine weigh?

So for someone who actually needs desktop performance (which, granted, you don't), and wants it to be light and portable, it looks like the Pro Mini is the only option.

Interestingly, if you only need a 1 TB SSD and 16 GB RAM, the M2 Pro Mini and the Alienware i5-13600KF/AMD RX6500 XT are nearly identically priced! [$1,750 for the Dell, $1,800 for the Mac, not including the cost of the $300 external SSD.] At this SSD/RAM config, the Mac is a much better hardware value than the Dell, because of its superior quietness, efficiency, portability, and CS support.

 

[dmccloud]

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....

For mobile internet, I just hotspot to my iPhone - requires zero config and connects faster than any WiFi network. Granted, the process is slightly more involved for those with Android phones, but it still works.

 

[Analog Kid]

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,

It appears I may have assumed incorrectly:

I'm pretty sure @theorist9 wouldn't buy a 16GB machine thinking they'd upgrade it later. They do stuff that needs RAM and bought for that purpose.

Still probably not buying 16GB, but would upgrade as needed...

 

[KPOM]

I think my point is getting diluted with all of this back and forth.

My point is the PC world has largely moved on to 16GB as the standard ram amount, that's it.

Not when there are still many at $999 that offer 8GB.

 

[JouniS]

Yeah, you have a unique situation that makes it impossible for Apple to complete, because you need a high-end amount of internal SSD storage (9 TB) combined with a relatively high-end mount of RAM (32 GB), but your performance needs are relatively modest (half your storage is going to be SATA-based, and you priced out your build with a modest processor—the Ryzen 6000 series' SC speeds are far slower than even the base M1's). With Apple you'd need to significantly overbuy on performance just to get the RAM and SSD capacity you need.

I wouldn't say this is a unique situation or even a particularly rare one. It's more about the difference between buying a consumer device and a professional tool; between having generic and specific needs.

Apple makes tightly integrated devices, which requires making compromises. If you have specific needs, it's quite likely that none of the offered compromises is particularly good. Either you don't get everything you need, or you have to buy hardware you don't need.

Here on MacRumors, people often mention that they have external SSDs (semi-)permanently attached to their Macs. Those people would have preferred more internal storage, but Apple pricing made it poor value for money, and sometimes sufficient storage options were not even available.

Similarly, when Apple launched the first touchbar MBPs, one of the initial criticisms was the the laptops were limited to 16 GB RAM. Even with CPUs far slower than the Ryzen 6000 series, many people would have needed 32 GB.

 

[theorist9]

I wouldn't say this is a unique situation or even a particularly rare one. It's more about the difference between buying a consumer device and a professional tool; between having generic and specific needs.

I agree with your thoughts—I should have used "specific" instead of "unique", and will edit my post correspondingly

Ironically, this applies to me as well! I don't need any more cores than are on the M2 Pro (at least not now -- who knows what next year will bring), yet I currently use 128 GB RAM. Maybe I was subconsciously hoping this made me unique 😆.

Apple makes tightly integrated devices, which requires making compromises. If you have specific needs, it's quite likely that none of the offered compromises is particularly good. Either you don't get everything you need, or you have to buy hardware you don't need.

Note that this was not the case for Apple desktops prior to Apple Silicon. You could spec the last (2020) 27" Intel iMac with a modest processor (6-core i5), and pair that with up to 128 GB RAM and an 8 TB SSD. Or spec the last (2018) Intel Mini with a 4-core i3, and pair it with up to 64 GB RAM and a 2 TB SSD.

 

[Digitalguy]

Thanks both theorist and JouniS for your insightfull posts.
Just to be a bit more precise.... I don't "need" 9TB of internal storage, but it's nice to have them as internal storage rather than having SSDs attached (my M1 mini has currently 3 SSDs attached (1TB T7, 2TB T7 shield and 4TB Sandisk Extreme) via a OWC hub. It's feasible but you cannot sync many cloud storage services to removable drives and they take ports....
But again I could make do with 1TB and external storage. But that would be a downgrade from my desktop, which has a large 3.5" drive in addition to the SSD that holds the OS.
The difference in CPU power between my M1 and a Ryzen 6000, even the low end Ryzen 5 (equivalent to an Intel I5) is pretty insignificant as far as I am concerned and both are an upgrade to my i7-4770 (which is fast enough for me). M2 pro is a different beast, I wouldn't mind the additional power but I can't justify the price of the RAM and storage updagradesv when I can get that for much cheaper on Windows. The RAM limitation of my M1 mini is something I wish Apple had not done, since I need more than 16GB to run everything comfortably, including Parallels, but that was the maximum back then... (and it's fine for a secondary device, but I couldn't use it as my main system with only 16GB).
The morefine is slightly smaller than the Mac Mini and probably lighter, but the weight difference does not matter, what matter is that I can put it in a suitecase without it taking too much room....
And power via USB C is a nice bonus (wish Apple would do that too).

 

[dgdosen]

It's kind of tough to reconcile Apple Execs visualizing macs having 96GB of memory for gaming... and Apple charging up to $200 for 8GB Upgrades... which could work out to: ((96 - 8) / 8 * 200) $2,200.

 

[theorist9]

It's kind of tough to reconcile Apple Execs visualizing macs having 96GB of memory for gaming... and Apple charging up to $200 for 8GB Upgrades... which could work out to: ((96 - 8) / 8 * 200) $2,200.

Yeah, I made that same comment myself a few weeks ago:

“Game developers have never seen 96 gigabytes of graphics memory available to them now, on the M2 Max. I think they’re trying to get their heads around it, because the possibilities are unusual. They’re used to working in much smaller footprints of video memory. So I think that’s another place where we’re going to have an interesting opportunity to inspire developers to go beyond what they’ve been able to do before.”

They were talking about establishing a large installed base of gaming-capable machines, which makes sense. But the percentage of users that will have 96 GB RAM anyways for non-gaming reasons is going to be quite small; and, at what Apple charges for RAM, the percentage of gamers that will buy 96 GB RAM specifically for gaming will likewise be tiny. So it seems unlikely game developers will optimize games to take advantage of so much RAM. A more reasonable statement would have been to mention that having, say, 32 GB available for CPU+GPU is going to become increasingly common on AS.

At the same time, Apple doesn't charge quite that much per GB when you get to high RAM. E.g, it's an extra $800 to go from 64 to 128, so I'd expect it would be more like an extra $800 x 96/64 = $1,200 (roughly) for 96 GB. Still way too much for most gamers, but a lot less than $2,200.

 

[dgdosen]

At the same time, Apple doesn't charge quite that much per GB when you get to high RAM. E.g, it's an extra $800 to go from 64 to 128, so I'd expect it would be more like an extra 1600 x 96/128 = $1,200 (roughly) for 96 GB.

I was trying to tap into the sensationalism and outrage

 

[theorist9]

I was trying to tap into the sensationalism and outrage

Very well, carry on .

 

[dgdosen]

Very well, carry on .

I do think that quote is a signal of Apple's future strategy of putting more memory in their systems. They've got this memory advantage over non-integrated designs, why not take advantage of it while they can? Is that 16? 32? this year? later? Apple isn't telling.

But Apple using the same memory for phones, ipads and computers will help them rein in costs to where they can still make very healthy margins while bumping up standard memory.

 

[fuchsdh]

Though it is likely enough the base model will still come with 8Gb Ram I think there is a possibility it might possibly ship with 12Gb which most of users will find enough and be happy with.

I for one hope that an upgrade to 24Gb would be "just" 200 $/€ or whatever. That and possibly 1Tb is what I will go for.

Yeah my expectation with the 24GB ceiling of the M2 is 12GB will become the new default. Maybe with an intermediate 16GB BTO option, but probably not at that point. Which, hey is still a 50% increase.

 

[spnc]

Can we also finally get 16TB of storage on the MBPs M3 (Ultra?) please! I currently have overall 12/13TB of data and sadly still need to rely on an external hard drive because Apple only offers 8TB - as of 2023 I think it's no longer acceptable. I'm ready to pay 10-14k for my next MBP M3 Ultra update next year so please Apple get your **** together. Also SanDisk will finally release their world's first 8TB external SSD dongle so it's about time you offer us more local space please. External disks aren't as fast as 6/7000mbps local SSD speeds and until Thunderbolt 5 comes to life we can't rely on external storage even SSD in my case I work on hi-res video files like 12k files and also music production wise I have TBs of stuff like Kontakt librairies, UVI Falcon, Omnisphere libs which are really heavy and don't work as fast on anything else than local SSD drives. It's so much smoother to have everything stored into a single disk and be able to index it all and search it all on a single disk, and then back it all up in real time with Time Machine and Dropbox (and even regular Carbon Copy Cleaner backups on top, but not mandatory).

And yes 128GB of memory instead of 96GB on the MBPs would also be sweet to max out my specs and work on many many different and complex things at the same time while staying on a MBP and not having to go with a desktop Mac. I'm sure this option will naturally come too. But please the SSD storage extension first!

World's first 200TB SSD is nearly here, but you can't use it | Digital Trends

The era of 200TB solid-state drives (SSD) appears to be on the horizon, with a successor to the world’s largest SSD confirmed to be in development.

www.digitaltrends.com

A huge 16TB SSD is coming soon, but there's a catch | Digital Trends

A huge 16TB SSD has overcome manufacturing issues and is now due for a launch in the coming months, but there's a catch.

www.digitaltrends.com

SanDisk’s prototype 8TB external SSD is the biggest ever made

The biggest external SSD ever made has arrived (as a prototype)

www.theverge.com

 

[Rafterman]

Can we also finally get 16TB of storage on the MBPs M3 (Ultra?) please! I currently have overall 12/13TB of data and sadly still need to rely on an external hard drive because Apple only offers 8TB - as of 2023 I think it's no longer acceptable. I'm ready to pay 10-14k for my next MBP M3 Ultra update next year so please Apple get your **** together. Also SanDisk will finally release their world's first 8TB external SSD dongle so it's about time you offer us more local space please. External disks aren't as fast as 6/7000mbps local SSD speeds and until Thunderbolt 5 comes to life we can't rely on external storage even SSD in my case I work on hi-res video files like 12k files and also music production wise I have TBs of stuff like Kontakt librairies, UVI Falcon, Omnisphere libs which are really heavy and don't work as fast on anything else than local SSD drives. It's so much smoother to have everything stored into a single disk and be able to index it all and search it all on a single disk, and then back it all up in real time with Time Machine and Dropbox (and even regular Carbon Copy Cleaner backups on top, but not mandatory).

And yes 128GB of memory instead of 96GB on the MBPs would also be sweet to max out my specs and work on many many different and complex things at the same time while staying on a MBP and not having to go with a desktop Mac. I'm sure this option will naturally come too. But please the SSD storage extension first!

World's first 200TB SSD is nearly here, but you can't use it | Digital Trends

The era of 200TB solid-state drives (SSD) appears to be on the horizon, with a successor to the world’s largest SSD confirmed to be in development.

www.digitaltrends.com

A huge 16TB SSD is coming soon, but there's a catch | Digital Trends

A huge 16TB SSD has overcome manufacturing issues and is now due for a launch in the coming months, but there's a catch.

www.digitaltrends.com

SanDisk’s prototype 8TB external SSD is the biggest ever made

The biggest external SSD ever made has arrived (as a prototype)

www.theverge.com

So...128GB RAM, 16TB storage, Ultra processor. Will it also come with the nuclear reactor needed to power it?

To reverse-Spiderman, with great responsibility comes great power. The battery tech has to advance with the hardware. Then there are the heat issues with all that under the hood. These are not easily solvable problems that will appear in a year or two.

 

[salamanderjuice]

So...128GB RAM, 16TB storage, Ultra processor. Will it also come with the nuclear reactor needed to power it?

To reverse-Spiderman, with great responsibility comes great power. The battery tech has to advance with the hardware. Then there are the heat issues with all that under the hood. These are not easily solvable problems that will appear in a year or two.

Honestly it's about the same power consumption as a 175W GeForce RTX 4090 laptop GPU paired with a i9 13980HX. Would need a monster brick and the battery life would suck if you push it but it's doable. Probably wouldn't work well in 16" MBP chassis as is either though.

 

[PauloSera]

I'm not convinced there is currently a need on either the Mac OS or Windows side to make 16GB the new baseline for RAM.

Agreed. Not even close actually. People on this forum seem to have no concept of the real world whatsoever. More than half of the buyers of baseline machines have no need of 16 GB of RAM.

The only reason these people keep bringing this up is because they wish their needs were covered by the base model, so they could cheap out and buy one.

 

[polaris20]

Not only is the base RAM lame, but the soldered in nature of it, coupled with the cost of their upgrades. Perhaps it's now necessary, due to the more elaborate integration. But I still get annoyed with having to pay $200 each step.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Not only is a higher base not coming soon … I’ll bet it won’t come for years and years

Apple is at the phase of just bilking easy money out of folks with decisions like “low base, soldered in and high upgrade pricing”

Once they got into the credit card space (with a partner, yes), I knew where this company was heading.

 

[Rafterman]

Not only is a higher base not coming soon … I’ll bet it won’t come for years and years

Apple is at the phase of just bilking easy money out of folks with decisions like “low base, soldered in and high upgrade pricing”

Once they got into the credit card space (with a partner, yes), I knew where this company was heading.

Apple seems to want to be a service company, not a hardware one. Apple TV, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Apple credit card...The hardware is only and means to an end.

 

[kasakka]

Not only is the base RAM lame, but the soldered in nature of it, coupled with the cost of their upgrades. Perhaps it's now necessary, due to the more elaborate integration. But I still get annoyed with having to pay $200 each step.

I am fine with it being integrated, there's at least some valid technical reasons for that and most users do not upgrade RAM on their laptops. I am not fine with it being extremely expensive to upgrade to a more sensible tier. Apple has a lot of "starting from" pricing that is just a bad deal unless you are a very basic level user.

The more insulting is the soldered SSD. This means if that fails for any reason, you are totally out of luck when the product is out of warranty when you need a whole logic board which costs at least 1/3 the price of a new machine. It's deliberately made to be non-repairable and is blatant anti-consumer move.

Apple will keep nickel and diming their userbase. The way they also treat their desktop systems the same as if they were phones or laptops is even worse.

I am receiving a new MBP M2 Max for work soon, but would never buy one with my own money because of the RAM/SSD shenanigans.

 

[Gudi]

I am fine with it being integrated, there's at least some valid technical reasons for that and most users do not upgrade RAM on their laptops.

That's not true. Back when it was easy to do it yourself, upgrading RAM was a common activity.

I am not fine with it being extremely expensive to upgrade to a more sensible tier. Apple has a lot of "starting from" pricing that is just a bad deal unless you are a very basic level user.

With M1 "very basic" now includes many tasks, which were considered "very pro" a few years back.

The more insulting is the soldered SSD. This means if that fails for any reason, you are totally out of luck when the product is out of warranty when you need a whole logic board which costs at least 1/3 the price of a new machine. It's deliberately made to be non-repairable and is blatant anti-consumer move.

Except failure rates of SSDs are way below those of HDDs. After five years an HDD would have about ~5% chance of dying each year. SSDs always stay below ~0.5% even with old age. The wear and tear of TBW is negligible unless you use the cheapest TLC or QLC SSDs.

Apple will keep nickel and diming their userbase. The way they also treat their desktop systems the same as if they were phones or laptops is even worse.

If you can't justify the memory and storage prices, then maybe you didn't need them to begin with? It's true their pricing structure is not connected to costs. But somehow you need to separate private from professional users and charge each group accordingly. We should consider ourselves lucky that we now get the exact same CPU and GPU for the base price.

I am receiving a new MBP M2 Max for work soon, but would never buy one with my own money because of the RAM/SSD shenanigans.

That's the intended purpose! People who use their Macs to make money are supposed to pay more for a Pro(fessional) MacBook. The MBP M2 Max is not meant to attract average consumers.

 

[kasakka]

That's not true. Back when it was easy to do it yourself, upgrading RAM was a common activity.

Again, most users do not do that. Enthusiasts might. Majority of users are not going to ever open up their machine.

With M1 "very basic" now includes many tasks, which were considered "very pro" a few years back.

The more "very pro" you are, the more you will run into the nickel and diming issues like 8 GB RAM and 256-512 GB SSDs with secretly gimped performance on the base models.

IMO the Macbook Pro lineup should start from features designed around users with "pro" needs, the Air (or in the past the non-Pro Macbook) are for e.g the business person more likely to write documents, spreadsheets and whatnot and thus not need a ton of RAM or disk space. To me the M2 Pro + 16 GB + 1 TB spec should be the base spec for the MBP lineup.

Except failure rates of SSDs are way below those of HDDs. After five years an HDD would have about ~5% chance of dying each year. SSDs always stay below ~0.5% even with old age. The wear and tear of TBW is negligible unless you use the cheapest TLC or QLC SSDs.

Yet you don't want to be in that small section of users with dying SSDs. On a more sensible system, you would simply replace the M.2 drive with a new one. On an Apple device, you can't. There is no good reason for the non-upgradeable drives, there are tons of laptops that easily fit a standard M.2.

If you can't justify the memory and storage prices, then maybe you didn't need them to begin with? It's true their pricing structure is not connected to costs. But somehow you need to separate private from professional users and charge each group accordingly. We should consider ourselves lucky that we now get the exact same CPU and GPU for the base price.

That's the intended purpose! People who use their Macs to make money are supposed to pay more for a Pro(fessional) MacBook. The MBP M2 Max is not meant to attract average consumers.

Honestly I would be fine for M2 Pro for work, except Apple limits that to 32 GB RAM while I need at least that, preferably more so with no upgradeability, M2 Max with 64 GB it is. Similarly I could do with fairly little disk space, but to avoid the reduced speeds for another non-replaceable part, I go for 1 TB disk space. I honestly don't know if I would have been fine with the lesser machine but I don't want to take that risk for a work machine I will be using for the next 3+ years.

It's not that personally I can't afford one of these, I just don't want to play Apple's game where their disk upgrades cost 3-4x more than an equivalent M.2 drive without offering any benefits. It shouldn't cost so damn much to go from e.g 512 GB to 1-2 TB.

 

[Gudi]

Again, most users do not do that. Enthusiasts might. Majority of users are not going to ever open up their machine.

Do you have any data on how many customers fall under 'most' or 'majority'. I've never seen a Mac that wasn't upgraded.

The more "very pro" you are, the more you will run into the nickel and diming issues like 8 GB RAM and 256-512 GB SSDs with secretly gimped performance on the base models.

The other way around, the more professional you are, the less you care about price and performance becomes the only factor in your purchase decision. That's why the Pro machines are the most expensive ones.

To me the M2 Pro + 16 GB + 1 TB spec should be the base spec for the MBP lineup.

And lo and behold that's almost the exact same base configuration Apple chose.

Yet you don't want to be in that small section of users with dying SSDs.

But I also don't want to be in the small section of users who experience connection problems with socketed components like CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD. All of them have a small chance of failure and still benefit from being soldered together for good.

On a more sensible system, you would simply replace the M.2 drive with a new one. On an Apple device, you can't.

And on a modular PC I can't save three quarters of my electricity bill and enjoy virtually eternal battery life.

There is no good reason for the non-upgradeable drives, there are tons of laptops that easily fit a standard M.2.

Yes, there is. It's called a System-on-a-Chip. It achieves way higher performance per watt, because of much tighter integration. You need to stop thinking of the SSD as a separate component. Data encryption and storage controller are integrated into the M1 itself. Only the storage chips are still separately soldered on the board nearby. But it's all just one part. And it might well last longer than your own remaining lifetime.

Honestly I would be fine for M2 Pro for work, except Apple limits that to 32 GB RAM while I need at least that, preferably more so with no upgradeability, M2 Max with 64 GB it is.

And the limited choice on RAM is good. People would abuse such freedom to create nonsensical combinations like 128 GB RAM on an passively cooled M1 MacBook Air.

Similarly I could do with fairly little disk space, but to avoid the reduced speeds for another non-replaceable part, I go for 1 TB disk space. I honestly don't know if I would have been fine with the lesser machine but I don't want to take that risk for a work machine I will be using for the next 3+ years.

There you have it. The risk to delay your work is worth the money.

It's not that personally I can't afford one of these, I just don't want to play Apple's game where their disk upgrades cost 3-4x more than an equivalent M.2 drive without offering any benefits.

There are benefits of buying Apple hardware instead of building a Hackintosh from cheaper PC parts. You just want to have your cake and eat it too. The best of both worlds. Wether you live in a golden cage or a golden castle is a question of attitude. Be grateful that you have time to reason about such 1st world problems!