New MacBook Pros Max Out at 16GB RAM Due to Battery Life Concerns

[bayer]

Apple's reasoning is indefensible.

Give customers the OPTION. I guarantee you that those of us that need 32GB of RAM have NO problem finding a power outlet when required.

Defending Apple on this requires one to go full-retard.

 

[justperry]

Phil Schiller is a ....

 

[Stella]

Good answer. 99% of all users value battery life over masses of unnecessary RAM that macOS really doesn't need. I'm glad Apple remains focused on the important things.

90%* of people probably don't require a 2016 15" Macbook Pro . The Macbook, 13" very low end or iPad, would probably suffice.

* large proportion

 

[superberg]

ddr4 uses less power...

but apple has the courage to over charge its best costumers.

I assumed that because it was 2133 MHz RAM, it would be DDR4.

SILLY ME.

That kind of frustrates me.

 

[kevinkyoo]

1. DDR4, more efficient, could have been used

2. They severely decreased the battery size in the first place (Feel free to look this up). Why not keep the same size, or at least slightly larger, to compensate for a 32GB configuration?

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RAM uses SIGNIFICANTLY less voltage than CPU/GPU, which would lead to almost negligent battery loss

4. If creative professionals and other people are going to use the full 32GB of RAM, they're not concerned about battery life. Either they're on the road and that by using all of the 32GB of RAM, they are using very intensive processes (So skimping out on 32GB will lead to very small savings in battery life) or they're going to use it charged

 

[masterhiggins]

Yes but it's thinner. Functionality be damned.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

For a pro level Mac, it should be an option.

 

[addicted44]

I am old enough that I remember when Apple was touting the MacBook Pro as a desktop replacement when talking about how you could dock it so easily with 2 monitors.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

So then why didn't they use DDR4? I'd like to email Schiller and get an answer about that one. And he better not say "courage"...

 

[kinless]

Give it time. I'm sure OWC will come up with their own memory that will allow 32GB in this machine.

 

[Amy Pond and me]

Now I understand it all: in a pro system battery life is much more important than performance. You know, if my work needs cannot be fulfilled with 16GB I can buy a second MBP and work them in parallel -what a beauty!- but there're only two solutions to lack of juice: a thicker laptop or plugging it to the wall -how unstylish!

Sorry Apple for doubting you!

 

[justperry]

Guys, let us vote with our wallets and not buy this garbage. I for one, will look elsewhere.

Availability has already slipped so there are plenty of morons buying this MBP from greedy Apple.

 

[calzon65]

Lack of more RAM and Apple's choice of DDR3 RAM is a slap in the face for such an expensive laptop.

 

[longofest]

While most average customers likely couldn't utilize 32GB RAM, the MacBook Pro is aimed at professionals who need more computing power and who may occasionally feel the constraints of being limited to 16GB RAM. There will undoubtedly be customers who are disappointed that Apple has not offered a choice between better performance and battery life.

Considering you can get a Dell XPS 15 with Skylake, Thunderbolt 3, 32 GB of RAM (removable even), 4K touchscreen, full sized USB ports, etc, all for the price of the base 15" macbook pro, professionals do indeed have a choice to make.

I have 16 GB in my MacBook Pro and I have indeed run out of RAM running several VMs at once.

 

[MikeLW]

Ridiculous and false reasoning. Had they used LPDDR4 instead of LPDDR3 they could have stuck 32GB in that machine at an even lower voltage level.

The RAM in the memory slots isn't all that needs to be changed... likely it would result in different architecture changes (possibly a different version of the processor?) and thus would be a different product from the <=16 GB version. This is very common across all laptop manufacturers (most of which offer 32 GB under in their high end engineering versions, if they even offer those.) Had they thought there was enough demand to make this other model, I'm sure they would have ..

 

[Dirtfarmer]

Hahahaha using a picture of an explosion to lead stories of these new machines is perfect.

He is saying that they will have to redesign the laptop to ever fit >16GB in it.

Which means 3-5 years from now.

There is no way they are not doing this on purpose.

They are milking the last of the loyal for the few remaining years prior to the EOL of MacOS.

They will show amazing margins on these things but falling demand -- exactly what they need to get permission from shareholders to pull the pin.

The narrative will be "iOS can do what 95% of users need. iOS has massive adoption. iOS is the future. The old Desktop OS from 2001 is from an obsolete paradigm and is getting expensive to maintain. We think the market is telling us to focus on the future, not the past."

Which is horse puckey of course.

 

[nsfw]

This is the richest company in the world. Is it really that hard to have a 8/16GB model and a truly pro model with 32GB of RAM and the most powerful but NOT energy efficient CPU/GPU available in mobile?
I agree with what others have said. Most of us don't need a thinner phone or laptop. It's good enough. Make it better. I don't need 12 hours of battery. Even on flights over 3 hours in the United States you have a power outlet.

 

[MartyF81]

The funny part of this conversation is how many people think they "need" 32GB of RAM... but are probably really only needing 8GB.

 

[citysnaps]

Guys, let us vote with our wallets and not buy this garbage. I for one, will look elsewhere.

That'll never happen. Much easier to just stay here and whine.

 

[jclardy]

Good answer. 99% of all users value battery life over masses of unnecessary RAM that macOS really doesn't need. I'm glad Apple remains focused on the important things.

LOL, it would be a build to order option, you can still buy your 8GB machine and go on your merry way. I would love to hear your rational on why they used slower and more power hungry DDR3 RAM rather than DDR4 which has been available for a while now.

I ordered one mainly because I do iOS development and am locked into OS X for the foreseeable future, but Apple is straight grifting consumers at this point. The "Apple Tax" subsided for a few years, but it is now back in full force.

 

[Quu]

The RAM in the memory slots isn't all that needs to be changed... likely it would result in different architecture changes (possibly a different version of the processor?) and thus would be a different product from the <=16 GB version. This is very common across all laptop manufacturers (most of which offer 32 GB under in their high end engineering versions, if they even offer those.) Had they thought there was enough demand to make this other model, I'm sure they would have ..

The CPU supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory. No change necessary.

 

[Trusteft]

The worst thing about Schiller's answer is, I am pretty sure he was serious about it.

Damn it, I wish Steve Jobs was still around.

 

[calzon65]

The funny part of this conversation is how many people think they "need" 32GB of RAM... but are probably really only needing 8GB.

I believe Apple MacBook users are sophisticated enough to know the amount of RAM they need

 

[needfx]

Damn it, I wish Steve Jobs was still around.

as if he would see reason

 

[rediffusion]

Is the RAM soldered on these new MBPs?