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

[Analog Kid]

Sheesh, you're bending over backwards and yet failed to read what I posted. Go back and reread what I said.
I never said Dell didn't sell laptops with 8gb. I posted that out of 30 laptops, dell is selling 5 laptops with 8gb.

If you want 16GB in your Mac you can do that. I really don't get why we keep having this same conversation over and over wrapped in different bunting.

I have to say, the mental gymnastics I'm seeing is everyone bending over backwards to avoid simply saying "I want a computer with higher specs and I want it cheaper". People keep trying to appeal to some higher principle, usually somehow tied to the configuration of the lowest priced product in the line, and then argue forever that it's nothing so crass as simply wanting more for less, it's some sort of moral imperative.

This time it was "I'm just curious when Apple is going to make the next big historic leap". By this point in the conversation it's clear this isn't a documentary thread, it's another opportunity to whine about prices that really should be merged with all the other threads that all keep repeating the same gripes.

There is nothing new here, or in the half dozen other threads about "base" configurations.

 

[Ethosik]

If you want 16GB in your Mac you can do that. I really don't get why we keep having this same conversation over and over wrapped in different bunting.

I have to say, the mental gymnastics I'm seeing is everyone bending over backwards to avoid simply saying "I want a computer with higher specs and I want it cheaper". People keep trying to appeal to some higher principle, usually somehow tied to the configuration of the lowest priced product in the line, and then argue forever that it's nothing so crass as simply wanting more for less, it's some sort of moral imperative.

This time it was "I'm just curious when Apple is going to make the next big historic leap". By this point in the conversation it's clear this isn't a documentary thread, it's another opportunity to whine about prices that really should be merged with all the other threads that all keep repeating the same gripes.

There is nothing new here, or in the half dozen other threads about "base" configurations.

Agreed. Who wouldn't want more for less? I am certainly tired of these GPU prices lately for one! But people need to understand, 8GB of RAM today is not the same as 8GB of RAM from 2010. Speeds change, latency improves, DDR3 -> DDR5 etc. Capacity is the same sure, but does my grandma REALLY need more than 8GB of RAM? Spoiler alert - NO. My M1 iMac has only 8GB of RAM and it can do 4K video editing and photoshop work.

 

[unchecked]

If nobody buys the 8GB, there’s no demand for it, but it also forces people to pay the premium for the upgrades.

So chances are it’s still going to be there, just to make the 16/24/32GB options more appealing. Also lets Apple to market “it starts at $x”, but everyone actually buys the RAM add-on.

I don’t like it, but I don’t see Apple changing.

 

[Analog Kid]

If nobody buys the 8GB, there’s no demand for it, but it also forces people to pay the premium for the upgrades.

So chances are it’s still going to be there, just to make the 16/24/32GB options more appealing. Also lets Apple to market “it starts at $x”, but everyone actually buys the RAM add-on.

I don’t like it, but I don’t see Apple changing.

It's the base model that is warehoused. The "upgrade" is a BTO that isn't available in store and has weeks of added delay in shipping online. It's a pretty lousy bait-and-switch if they pay the cost to manufacture millions of the bait, bring you in with it, then when you're convinced to switch you're told to go online and wait a month.

Seriously, if people weren't buying them, Apple wouldn't be making them just as part of some nefarious marketing scheme. The economics of it just don't work. If they wanted to say "starts at $x" and then force people to pay a premium for upgrades, they'd warehouse the model they want people to buy and leave the friction on the cheap model to make the bait and switch easier.

People here just have a really hard time imagining that not every customer is interested in running Cinebench loops and exporting 12k video from Final Cut. If you allow yourself to accept the principles that not all customers are idiots and Apple understands their market, you don't have to make nearly as many leaps in your logic.

 

[unchecked]

Yea but 8GB doesn’t make it a pleasurable experience either. With today’s Chrome usage 16GB should be the minimum, and if people are running productivity apps then 32GB should be something they seriously consider.

I take my Apple Watch 3 as another example. It simply doesn’t have enough storage to do the last two or three OS updates without needing to wipe the Watch but they only stopped selling it last year and replaced it with the SE.

There’s also the iPads and how people went “you don’t need that much RAM in iPads/iPhones”. My iPad6 struggles with keeping apps open with the limited amount of RAM it has for the last few years. Took the community to get upset enough for them to finally relent and add more RAM to the iPads. And it took them forever to drop the 32GB storage option in iPhones too.

Apple will drag out these RAM/storage updates for as long as they can, until we make noise.

 

[salamanderjuice]

I think you're missing my point. The base Air with 8 GB retails for $1200. Consider two scenarios:

1) Apple changes the base SKU to 16 GB and charges $1400.

2) Apple keeps the base SKU at 8 GB, but cuts the price across the board by $200. Thus the new base SKU (8GB) is $1000, and the 16 GB SKU is $1200.

Which would people prefer? Obviously no. 2. That means the complaint really is not about the config of the base SKU, it's about what Apple charges.

$200 is what Apple charges for people to get an extra 8GB RAM. It does not cost Apple anywhere near $200 to add 8GB. Would making the base model have 16GB instead of 8GB make them less money at $1200? Of course! Would it be unprofitable? I highly doubt it.

 

[Analog Kid]

Responding to someone without quoting them gives the impression of trying to speak behind their back without wanting a response.

Yea but 8GB doesn’t make it a pleasurable experience either.

How so? If you do nothing but run Safari and Word, what do you need more for? If you're setting up an accounting team that does nothing but use web applications, what do you need more for? If you're looking for a first computer for a child, what do they need more for? If your grandmother wants to video chat with the kids every now and then and only ever learns to click the two or three applications in the dock, what does she need more for?

If you look at memory pressure, and it's low, then your experience would be no more pleasurable with 128GB of RAM than it is with 8.

With today’s Chrome usage 16GB should be the minimum, and if people are running productivity apps then 32GB should be something they seriously consider.

It really isn't Apple that's trying to convince people to pay a premium to upgrade, it's people like you...

Apple will drag out these RAM/storage updates for as long as they can, until we make noise.

Then send feedback to Apple, and if what you're really trying to do here is hand pitchforks to the mob then be upfront about it and stop pretending 8GB of RAM violates some basic human right. Create a thread that says "let's start a campaign to convince Apple to add more RAM" and then focus all your noise making efforts there. It'll be much more effective than this base model dogwhistle people keep trying to use.

This thread says nothing about making noise to get Apple to change their policies, so if that's what you're doing here you're off topic.

 

[senttoschool]

Eventually, Apple will have to give the base Macbooks more RAM.

Samsung's Galaxy S21 Ultra has 12GB LPDDR5. Mi 11 Ultra has 12GB.

8GB inside a laptop in 2022/2023 is going to barely cut it even if it's paired with the magic of Apple SIlicon. It was fine back in 2016.

However, increasing the base from 8GB to 16GB for Air, 16GB to 32GB for Pros seems too much and would eat into Apple's profits.

Could we see an increase from say, 8GB to 10/12GB? 16GB to 20/24GB soon?

 

[senttoschool]

For the first half of the MacBook Pro's history, from 2006 until 2014, the base memory on Apple's premier laptop doubled five times, from an introductory 512 megabytes to a whopping eight gigabytes. In the second half of the MacBook Pro's history, from 2015 until today, the base memory has doubled...zero times. Even today, the base 13" MacBook Pro comes with the same 8 GB of memory that has been standard since 2014. Way back in April 2016, the last 4GB Mac notebook was discontinued. And yet, all these years later, the next big doubling of memory has never come.

Correlates to $/GB stagnating in the RAM industry.

 

[theorist9]

$200 is what Apple charges for people to get an extra 8GB RAM. It does not cost Apple anywhere near $200 to add 8GB. Would making the base model have 16GB instead of 8GB make them less money at $1200? Of course! Would it be unprofitable? I highly doubt it.

It's not about that. Apple could certainly increase the RAM from 8 GB to 16 GB in the base model with only a small increase in their BOM, and thus only take a small profit loss on the base model, as you say.

But that's not the profit loss they're worried about. Lots of people do need 16 GB RAM. If you put the 16 GB in the base model, people no longer need to pay the extra $200 to upgrade to it.

That's why Apple leaves the base at 8 GB. It allows them to advertise a low starting price (thus bringing in potential customers), while also forcing anyone who needs more RAM to pay through the nose for it.

Essentially, the more expensive SKUs subsidize the less expensive ones. This allows Apple to have cheaper configs to bring in younger buyers (students), whose introduction to the Mac at an early age is critical to the Mac's future success, without giving up their high profit margins.

 

[theorist9]

Correlates to $/GB stagnating in the RAM industry.

Well they're dropping now, according to this article posted about a month ago by Mark Tyson:

8GB DDR5 Contract Pricing Dropped 43% Through 2022

Prices continue to slide, with no sign of recovery on the horizon.

www.tomshardware.com

Also: Could you post a reference for your chart? That let's me check the source, and also gives the creator credit.

 

[boss.king]

If you want 16GB in your Mac you can do that. I really don't get why we keep having this same conversation over and over wrapped in different bunting.

I have to say, the mental gymnastics I'm seeing is everyone bending over backwards to avoid simply saying "I want a computer with higher specs and I want it cheaper". People keep trying to appeal to some higher principle, usually somehow tied to the configuration of the lowest priced product in the line, and then argue forever that it's nothing so crass as simply wanting more for less, it's some sort of moral imperative.

This time it was "I'm just curious when Apple is going to make the next big historic leap". By this point in the conversation it's clear this isn't a documentary thread, it's another opportunity to whine about prices that really should be merged with all the other threads that all keep repeating the same gripes.

There is nothing new here, or in the half dozen other threads about "base" configurations.

Exactly. It’s not like there’s anything wrong with wanting it to be cheaper either. But trying to justify it as some standard Apple is failing to uphold is just a bad argument, plain and simple.

 

[sam_dean]

This threads just a way to talk things out that bothers many of us about why the M1/M2 and possibly the M3 Mac standard SKUs are still stuck at 8GB RAM & 256GB SSD since 2012.

After all this is a Mac forum.

Then I remembered that I am not making a fair comparison.

I should be be looking when Macs with the same form factor, MSRP, RAM & SSD to the M1/M2 models first appeared.

First time a Mac form factor had 8GB RAM & 256GB SSD at the following price points

- $999 MBA SKU was the Mar 2020 model
- $599 Mac mini SKU was the Jan 2023 model
- $1299 MBP 13" SKU was the May 2020 model
- $1299 iMac 21.5" SKU was the Aug 2020 model

But personally the above Mac SKUs at their price points should all have 16GB RAM & 512GB SSD.

 

[Abazigal]

For the first half of the MacBook Pro's history, from 2006 until 2014, the base memory on Apple's premier laptop doubled five times, from an introductory 512 megabytes to a whopping eight gigabytes. In the second half of the MacBook Pro's history, from 2015 until today, the base memory has doubled...zero times. Even today, the base 13" MacBook Pro comes with the same 8 GB of memory that has been standard since 2014. Way back in April 2016, the last 4GB Mac notebook was discontinued. And yet, all these years later, the next big doubling of memory has never come.

That's not to say there haven't been improvements, Apple Silicon is a revelation, with those 8 GB of memory now integrated onto the chip and complemented by speedy SSDs. Nonetheless, this base RAM has grown too long in the tooth. Later this year, the iPhone 15 Pro is rumored to receive 8 GB of RAM, and its Mac siblings should take the hint that this standard is no longer acceptable in a full-fledged computer.

Apple should use the opportunity presented by M3 to increase their base memory to 16 GB. The M1 Pro, unveiled in late 2021, came alongside 16 GB of RAM as standard, in addition to a base storage of 512 GB. Two years and an innovative three-nanometer process later, the M3 will likely be competitive with the M1 Pro, if not running laps around it. These necessary upgrades will solidify Apple's standing in the computing space.

With the M3 Air launching later this year, Apple will have the choice as to whether keep the $999 M1 Air in their lineup or to discontinue it. If they let the M2 Air take its price, few will spend two or three hundred dollars extra simply to upgrade the specs of their chip. However, if this upgrade comes alongside an included increase in base RAM (and perhaps even more storage), the upgrade would be a no-brainer. Apple is all about price-ladders, and this one would make sense, pushing consumers towards the newest, greatest, and more-expensive model.

The earnings for the Mac sector this previous quarter were a jarring decline, and Apple is counting on a big Fall release of M3 to flip the script for the Mac in the year ahead. Though the M3 will undoubtedly be faster and more efficient, this overdue upgrade to RAM will push it from good to great. Let's see if we'll finally have the doubling we've been waiting for.

There's a lot of wrong in this writeup.

1) Apple begins with end in mind. This means that if the base Mac comes with 8gb ram and 256 gb storage, that's because Apple has analysed the target market for said product and determined that this combination of specs does indeed suffice for the majority. Users have the option of paying extra for more ram and / or storage, but these are likely more the exception than the norm.

If the next iPhone is going to come with 8gb ram, then it's likely because the iPhone will come with some new feature that needs that much ram (probably some souped-up camera function). This is a completely separate issue from whether the next MBA or Mac mini should come with more ram or not. Apple is not in the business of giving extra ram simply because they have too much money lying around.

2) In the same vein, the M1 Pro comes with more ram / storage because the Mac Studio and MBPs are meant to serve vastly different markets. These are more professional users with more powerful computing needs, and the improved base specs of the products reflect that.

3) In the event of a M3 Air refresh, my guess is that it will replace the current M2 MBA (likely still staying at 8gb ram). Same form factor. Price should stay the same (or maybe a small price drop) while the M1 MBA stays. Given the new form factor of the new MBA, I don't think it's been around long enough for Apple to fully write off the manufacturing costs yet, which in turn means it's too early to see a dramatic enough price drop with the M2 MBA that it can replace the M1 MBA in terms of hitting that $1k price point.

It's also telling that the two M2 MBA models in the App Store sport 8gb ram. This tells you that from Apple's POV, users are likely to need more on-device storage than they would memory.

This also raises the question of how long my M1 MBA will continue to receive software updates for. I am expecting 6-7 years, but it also means that an M1 MBA purchased today may only be supported for another 4-5 years. Okay for a smartphone, pretty short for a PC.

4) I personally wouldn't read too much into the Apple's Mac earnings for this quarter (or any one quarter). Macs last a pretty long time, and so the upgrade cycle for Intel Macs (of which the majority of Apple's user base would still be on) would be all over the place. For example, my 2017 5k iMac is still going strong, the display is gorgeous, and given that the resale value for intel Macs isn't very good at the moment, I see myself using it till it falls apart (which could be another few more years from now). It doesn't matter how good or how much ram the new Macs come with. I will upgrade when it's time, not before.

The only reason for a Mac to come with more ram out of the gate is if software requirements suddenly balloon to the point where 8gb ram is no longer enough. You might have better luck writing to app developers asking them to make their apps more bloated and seeing if Apple will respond in kind.

 

[Nugat Trailers]

A part of it is also the speed of RAM as well, not just capacity.

People say that a MacBook Air from 2016 had 8 GB RAM as base, which is true. But that was LPDDR3, running at 1866 MHz, whereas a M1 MacBook Air from 2020 had LPDDR4X 4266 MHz.

The M2 MacBook Air has LPDDR5 6400 MHz.

Now, certainly, you can buy RAM that fast on the PC side, but there's a decent price. Amazon has 2x16 GB modules of DDR5 6400 MHz at $291.40, although prices quickly climb past the 300 mark, and that isn't LPDDR5, which is likely more expensive/harder to find.

Not that Apple isn't overcharging for RAM, but...

 

[AlixSPQR]

I see like ”end this thread”, ”no need for another thread”, ”it's just whining”. Would those people argue the same about free speech, in general? ”No need to discuss anything, be content with what you are offered, the powers that are know best”. Perhaps they do.
For others: Remember that there are potential personal gains when you see Apple being constantly defended. They might be employees, shareholders, and so on. Or, more psychologically understandable, people who have bought 8 GB/256 GB entry macs and have a great need to defend their decisions.

 

[sam_dean]

A part of it is also the speed of RAM as well, not just capacity.

People say that a MacBook Air from 2016 had 8 GB RAM as base, which is true. But that was LPDDR3, running at 1866 MHz, whereas a M1 MacBook Air from 2020 had LPDDR4X 4266 MHz.

The M2 MacBook Air has LPDDR5 6400 MHz.

Now, certainly, you can buy RAM that fast on the PC side, but there's a decent price. Amazon has 2x16 GB modules of DDR5 6400 MHz at $291.40, although prices quickly climb past the 300 mark, and that isn't LPDDR5, which is likely more expensive/harder to find.

Not that Apple isn't overcharging for RAM, but...

Good point but when you go to sites like BHPhoto, Adorama or even Amazon you cannot filter laptops for RAM or SSD throughput. They filter by price, capacity, CPU core count, CPU or GPU product line, screen size, etc.

 

[livmatus]

Apple is overcharging af … 32GB (2x16) 6400MT CL32 Kingston with RGB is selling for $210 converted here in Czechia

 

[Scarrus]

All laptops at any price point filtered by RAM on BHPhoto.

For those who aren't aware of it BHPhoto pretty much caters to creatives that cater to people at the core of the Mac market.

To be fair to Apple... I filtered for $999 & higher laptops + RAM for all laptops

Doing a percentage calculation that comes to about roughly 13% of $999+ Laptops having only 8Gb Ram.

But I guess this also includes the Apple ones?

 

[cocoua]

16GB RAM will be standard when just booting macOS eats 14GB or more.

It has no sense to add more RAM to the base model.

The same for HD, the base model capacity barely covers the needs for the included apps. Cache files and App Support files alone for Spotify, Chrome and Lightroom eats 80-120GB for regular use.

Any pro user woth Abode suite needs 100GB just for apps, >150GB just for cache files and >150GB for cache and support.

Xcode eats 20Gb just the base app… so 500GB barely covers installing.

The thing is “base” model refers to “all you need right out of the box”, not to “all you will ever need” model

 

[sam_dean]

Doing a percentage calculation that comes to about roughly 13% of $999+ Laptops having only 8Gb Ram.

But I guess this also includes the Apple ones?

I did not filter based on brand. So what you say may be true.

A reason why I want the M2 Pro to have 32GB RAM & 1TB SSD is that my 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 has been running on 32GB RAM & 1TB Fusion Drive since day 1 for the past 519 weeks. I had to replace the Fusion Drive with a 2TB SSD when the HDD died 5 years ago.

I disagree with the BTO pricing of RAM & SSD and how long it takes for BTO to get fulfilled so I'd prefer it to be part of the standard retail SKUs that gets pushed to all retail channels.

Although I discovered today that 8GB RAM & 256GB SSD became standard at M1/M2 price points with the last Intel Macs of 2020 it does not mean Apple should not have done beyond expectations.

 

[Nugat Trailers]

Apple is overcharging af … 32GB (2x16) 6400MT CL32 Kingston with RGB is selling for $210 converted here in Czechia

You've most likely found DDR5, not LPDDR5.

LPDDR modules are smaller and use less power than DDR, but in return, they're more expensive.

 

[sam_dean]

You've most likely found DDR5, not LPDDR5.

LPDDR modules are smaller and use less power than DDR, but in return, they're more expensive.

Hence 22 hour battery lifefor the MBA.

Mac minis consuming less than 27W of power

iMac 24" less than 80W, etc etc.

 

[livmatus]

You've most likely found DDR5, not LPDDR5.

LPDDR modules are smaller and use less power than DDR, but in return, they're more expensive.

I mean yea ... but in the case of the whole DIMM you have to account also the fact that it's a standalone product, has some r&d, the company (e.g. Kingston) also has to make some profits

Apple is just slapping memory chips on their SoCs ... where the larger capacity chip costs insignificantly more than the lower capacity one compared to the price markup for the end customer

 

[Scarrus]

Still this begs the question... Using that high speed Ram but only 8Gb of it looks more like using it on dedicated hardware that on a general purpose computer.