16GB of RAM Could Be the New Minimum in Apple's Upcoming M4 Macs

[cjsuk]

I had to use ASUS's customer service last year, and they were good with me 🤷🏼‍♂️ What problem did they refuse to resolve? I liked the free telephone support, speedy answer, and helpful resolution. My immediate family and I have two of their laptops, one desktop, and two routers.

Edit: I will say I hate their bullsh*t router software and App and dodgy terms and conditions. Basically stating they reserve the right to spy on us. Upgrade to Merlin firmware and dodge any software they make. I don't know why they thought people would be accepting of such untrustworthy behaviour.

Well the rather expensive £2k Quadro RTX blew up after 3 months and the RMA took 6 months during which I had to rent compute from Amazon. Yes 6 flipping months and it was down thoroughly to incompetence on their part. Got it back and the board packed in as well.

 

[ric22]

Well the rather expensive £2k Quadro RTX blew up after 3 months and the RMA took 6 months during which I had to rent compute from Amazon. Yes 6 flipping months and it was down thoroughly to incompetence on their part. Got it back and the board packed in as well.

6 months?!? Yikes. Did you buy it direct from them? If not, doesn't the merchant usually have to deal with issues in the first year in the UK? (Which is where I'm originally from)

 

[Velli]

Its funny to see how convinced you are that Windows PCs and Laptops are bad based on experience with corporate computers.

I have a lot of experience with tech in general and a lot corporate corporate computers are bad simply because of the countless corporate trash apps and services companies force into these computers and have to be active in the background all the time, which is the main reason they run slower, have more software problems and have worse battery life than the consumer devices. Consumer variants are also generally friendlier and better looking. They also run much much better and have low failure rates.



I generally had Lenovo's as company laptops and none was anywhere near as bad as you claim here. Actually I stopped having failures with the Windows 10 era.

I have a Lenovo that, while sluggish compared to my MBA, has worked without issues. Then I have colleagues with demand for more powerful PC’s with bigger Lenovo models, that has been buggy as hell, until they were switched to HP after 6 month. Similar thing happened to a different colleague with some very expensive (3k+ USD) fancy slimline model, not sure which brand. Clearly buggy PC’s did not dissapear with Windows 10.

This is (except for specific issues like the keyboard fiasco) a big reason for getting a Mac - you know what you get. I would have zero clue which Lenovo to buy for my private use, to get a “good” one.

And that’s not even going into your argument that PC’s for private use has less bloatware, which clearly depends heavily on which one you’re getting.

 

[Velli]

Anyway, everybody except the hardcore "Apple is always right" brigade can see that 8GB on a $1600 MacBook Pro in 2024 is getting indefensible - and if it isn't already losing them sales it will do soon.

Sounds like this is the perfect time to upgrade then.

Noone argued it should stay on 8GB forever.

 

[theluggage]

Noone argued it should stay on 8GB forever.

...and nobody argued that it was likely to stay on 8GB "forever" - although, 8-12 years (for the MB Pro) is almost forever in the computer industry.

There have been plenty of people on here defending the idea of it staying on 8GB for the present, though.

 

[TLuc]

I have a fairly hefty desktop PC which has (well had) Asus parts in it. Board and GPU (for numerical computing not games). Have you tried their warranty service? It's garbage. Absolutely the worst.

I actually rent compute from AWS now because it's more reliable.

Asus PC parts are not the same as Asus laptops.
And this is not relevant in any way to the ASUS Zenbook S16 and what he said about the AMD laptop CPU.

Well the rather expensive £2k Quadro RTX

So a singular example.

 

[TLuc]

I'm not talking cheap things. I'm talking $3000-4500 workstations and the higher end business laptops,

Well business devices are seriously overpriced anyway, I don't see how this is relevant.

While that is partially the case, that does not account for thermal failures and abysmal battery life.

I don't remember the last time I saw thermal failures in such devices.
And it does account for those.

Nor if you do a differential analysis with our MBPs which have the same software (MDM tools / CS etc), they don't have these issues.

I don't see how this is relevant. MBPs are generally ignored by business even if they are cheaper than Lenovo's and Dell's which is quite telling.

Maybe for your sample size but when you start buying lots of things, the picture isn't so prpretty.

I generally have more experience with consumer laptops. The reality is far from the way you try to generalize it.

 

[TLuc]

I have a Lenovo that, while sluggish compared to my MBA, has worked without issues. Then I have colleagues with demand for more powerful PC’s with bigger Lenovo models, that has been buggy as hell, until they were switched to HP after 6 month. Similar thing happened to a different colleague with some very expensive (3k+ USD) fancy slimline model, not sure which brand. Clearly buggy PC’s did not dissapear with Windows 10.

This is (except for specific issues like the keyboard fiasco) a big reason for getting a Mac - you know what you get. I would have zero clue which Lenovo to buy for my private use, to get a “good” one.

Well the internet is full of information, recomandations and tests.

If you don't know anything about consumer Lenovo laptops you can easily find out any information you need.

With companies, you get a device from the approved list, sometimes based on your position and rank.

And that’s not even going into your argument that PC’s for private use has less bloatware, which clearly depends heavily on which one you’re getting.

They objectively do have less bloatware and the one that they have puts way less strain on the hardware than corporate crap apps.
Windows on my personal laptop feels ligh as a feather vs Windows on my work laptop even if my work laptop has stronger newer hardware. And I didn't turn off anything on my personal laptop even if, I ca easily run a simple script and turn off anything I don't want.

 

[mrmod]

Their actual “pro” machines that you refer to already start at 18GB. The base M3 MBP is for business professionals who are doing things like making spreadsheets, typing up Word documents, or doing presentations in meetings all day. For those people, 8GB is plenty. That’s why it’s not ridiculous. Those people would be paying for RAM they don’t need. Those types of people are pros, just not the kind who spend all their time writing code or running Blendor, Final Cut Pro, or Photoshop. Secretaries, HR people, marketing and sales, and corporate executives are all examples of people for whom 8GB is more than enough… now. That’s why all PC vendors, not just Apple, have 8GB machines targeted at those professionals. People on this site seem to think Apple’s the only company on earth that sells 8GB machines.

The ones that need that kind of power are buying M3 Pro or M3 Max machines which start at 18GB.

If Apple is indeed raising minimum RAM to 16GB, that’s an indication that even those pros that buy 8GB machines will need more to handle future AI features. The idea is to give people what they need, not what they want, in base specs so they don’t pay for what they don’t need. Apple raising the minimum RAM is an indication that people will need more than 8G in the near future for unreleased features.

The “14 macbook pro” comes standard with 8gb. Apple classifies it as a pro machine in the name. It's all relative to the price... 8GB in 2024 is ridiculous for the price. They do the same with SSD upgrade prices. Apple’s ssd are even slow compared to the rest of the industry.

 

[Velli]

Well the internet is full of information, recomandations and tests.

Exactly… 🙄

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

But if you’re actually a professional making a living using your computer AND you actually need 32GB to perform your profession…

Then you should be willing to pay for the tool you need. You don’t need a bare entry configuration. And a marketing gimmick of a sticker that says “Pro” should not be the basis of your purchasing decisions.

I do make a living from it, and I have paid it. I have a 16" M1P MBP 32GB/2TB. The price tag of the RAM/SSD upgrades was offensive, but I paid them, as I get value out of this machine.

That's not the point though. The point is that on this forum there is a massive debate about the minimum specs. And I am saying that the only reason that those min specs are so low, is that Apple sees RAM/SSD as an opportunity to increase their margins, so deliberately underspec their machines, in an attempt to nudge buyers into a higher price bracket.

However, most buyers simply buy the base spec, and live with an underspec'ed, underperforming machine. All because of Apple's stupid greed. Yes, stupid, because I think it damages the reputation of their machines, and their brand, and I suspect it actually results in reduced profits in the long run. I'm guessing their market/supply/demand/profit research says otherwise, but I suspect their research concentrates on the short term profit, and doesn't really take into account the long term effect.

 

[Velli]

I do make a living from it, and I have paid it. I have a 16" M1P MBP 32GB/2TB. The price tag of the RAM/SSD upgrades was offensive, but I paid them, as I get value out of this machine.

That's not the point though. The point is that on this forum there is a massive debate about the minimum specs. And I am saying that the only reason that those min specs are so low, is that Apple sees RAM/SSD as an opportunity to increase their margins, so deliberately underspec their machines, in an attempt to nudge buyers into a higher price bracket.

100% agree.

I have for sure not been clear about this, but I have not been defending the markup. I have pushed back when people say 8 GB computers are useless and should not exist.

I HAVE defended Apple’s right to run their business whichever way they like, and your right to not like it. I have NOT argued that they are doing it for the good of the consumer. They are, of course and as they should and just like any other company, doing it for the bottom line.

However, most buyers simply buy the base spec, and live with an underspec'ed, underperforming machine. All because of Apple's stupid greed. Yes, stupid, because I think it damages the reputation of their machines, and their brand, and I suspect it actually results in reduced profits in the long run.

You can’t both argue that they are maximising profits because they are greedy, and minimising profits because they are stupid. I subscribe to Jason Snell’s position on this: People have been complaining about Apple’s base spec for decades. Somehow that day when their stupid greed runs the company into the ground hasn’t arrived. Aaany day now.

I'm guessing their market/supply/demand/profit research says otherwise, but I suspect their research concentrates on the short term profit, and doesn't really take into account the long term effect.

Apple is the most long term focused company I can think of. Removing incentives to upsell, to quickly sell more low-end models, is the very definition of shortsightedness. While annoying as a customer, from the angle of a business person Apple’s ability to always make it look like the next model up from the one you are looking at is actually the model you should get, is exemplary.

Another thing Apple is remarkable at, is taking the largest market share in the segments with the most profits, while leaving the low margin segments alone.

 

[Manzanito]

I do make a living from it, and I have paid it. I have a 16" M1P MBP 32GB/2TB. The price tag of the RAM/SSD upgrades was offensive, but I paid them, as I get value out of this machine.

That's not the point though. The point is that on this forum there is a massive debate about the minimum specs. And I am saying that the only reason that those min specs are so low, is that Apple sees RAM/SSD as an opportunity to increase their margins, so deliberately underspec their machines, in an attempt to nudge buyers into a higher price bracket.

However, most buyers simply buy the base spec, and live with an underspec'ed, underperforming machine. All because of Apple's stupid greed. Yes, stupid, because I think it damages the reputation of their machines, and their brand, and I suspect it actually results in reduced profits in the long run. I'm guessing their market/supply/demand/profit research says otherwise, but I suspect their research concentrates on the short term profit, and doesn't really take into account the long term effect.

Agreed with everything you said, but at this point they don’t seem to care all that much about the mac, which hasn’t been their flagship for a long time. See what they have done to the mac pro, for instance.

Even a decade ago or something like that Tim Cook had to issue an internal memo reassuring their own employees the mac was not going to be left behind.

So if in the long run people stops buying macs they’re not going to be happy, sure, but it seems they’re only willing to sell them under a certain set of parameters and they’re sticking to it. Granted in the past they also put the bare minimum ram they could get away with, but also in the past you could easily buy and install extra ram at market prices, not at apple extortion levels prices. We’ll see how it goes.

 

[jlc1978]

Apple is the most long term focused company I can think of. Removing incentives to upsell, to quickly sell more low-end models, is the very definition of shortsightedness. While annoying as a customer, from the angle of a business person Apple’s ability to always make it look like the next model up from the one you are looking at is actually the model you should get, is exemplary.

Except that is not Apple's sales approach. Apple does not provide incentives to upsell any item. That would be shortsighted since customers would feel like they were pressured to buy a higher end machine, which makes the relationship adversarial and transactional; vs a relationship where customers have a great experience.

 

[throwthedice]

Haven’t been following all the rumors, but are new MacBooks likely to be announced in the September event?

 

[ric22]

You can’t both argue that they are maximising profits because they are greedy, and minimising profits because they are stupid.

Why can't you? I happen to agree with what the previous poster wrote. Apple are penny pinching to make an easy profit on devices, but personally I believe it is a crappy self-defeating tactic in the long run because it alienates long term Apple fans like us, and deters potential new buyers from buying Macs.

I moved to Germany last year, and was shocked to find such an absence of Macs on university campuses- students explained that Apple are seen as dreadful value for money due to the deliberately poor specs in key areas, no potential to upgrade and no touch screens. "Posers computers" I was told. I worked as an educator in China before, and very many students chose Apple- they didn't have the same distain for the poor value proposition and mainly just wanted whatever looked "coolest". Unless Apple are simply content chasing the cool image, they might want to reconsider the penny pinching on Macs.

 

[Addicted2Apples]

All of Apple's upcoming new Macs this year are likely to have at least 16GB of RAM pre-installed as standard, breaking a years-long tradition of Apple offering just 8GB of RAM in most of its base Macs and forcing customers to pay out an extra $200+ for additional memory.

The adequacy of 8GB of RAM in Macs has been a contentious issue for over a decade. The debate traces back to 2012 when Apple introduced the first Retina MacBook Pro with 8GB RAM as standard. Remarkably, Apple still continues to offer 8GB as the base memory configuration for several models, including the M3 14-inch MacBook Pro, M3 iMac, and M3 MacBook Airs.

However, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman reports that Apple is testing four new Mac models equipped with an M4 chip, and all of them have either 16GB or 32GB of unified memory. Gurman previously reported that Apple is planning to refresh the MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and iMac with M4 chips this year. One possibility is that Apple has deemed that 16GB of RAM should be the new workable minimum for future AI features introduced under the Apple Intelligence banner, but that is merely speculation at this point.

Last year, Apple introduced a base 14-inch MacBook Pro with M3 chip, which replaced the discontinued M2 13-inch MacBook Pro in Apple's Mac lineup. Starting at $1,599, the 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro comes with 8GB of unified memory. Users can opt for 16GB or 24GB at checkout, but these configuration options cost an extra $200 and $400 at purchase, respectively, and cannot be upgraded at a later date because of Apple's unified memory architecture.

• Is 8GB of RAM Enough for a Mac in 2024?

This has left Apple open to criticism from users who believe that 8GB is not a sufficient amount of RAM for most creative professional workflows, and that 16GB should be the bare minimum for a machine that is marketed as "Pro," rather than an additional several hundred dollar outlay. Apple previously argued that 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other computers because of the efficiency gains of using unified architecture. Needless to say, that argument failed to resonate with many creative professionals, and so the news that 16GB is likely to be the new minimum will surely be a welcome development.

Article Link: 16GB of RAM Could Be the New Minimum in Apple's Upcoming M4 Macs

16GB Base Model RAM on Apple Silicon going forward vs. 120Hz on an Apple Device without a Pro name (iPad Air, MacBook Air, iPhone 16/17/18) which will happen 1st, only time will tell! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Abazigal]

I do make a living from it, and I have paid it. I have a 16" M1P MBP 32GB/2TB. The price tag of the RAM/SSD upgrades was offensive, but I paid them, as I get value out of this machine.

That's not the point though. The point is that on this forum there is a massive debate about the minimum specs. And I am saying that the only reason that those min specs are so low, is that Apple sees RAM/SSD as an opportunity to increase their margins, so deliberately underspec their machines, in an attempt to nudge buyers into a higher price bracket.

However, most buyers simply buy the base spec, and live with an underspec'ed, underperforming machine. All because of Apple's stupid greed. Yes, stupid, because I think it damages the reputation of their machines, and their brand, and I suspect it actually results in reduced profits in the long run. I'm guessing their market/supply/demand/profit research says otherwise, but I suspect their research concentrates on the short term profit, and doesn't really take into account the long term effect.

And I would like to offer a counterargument.

I believe the reason why the entry-level Macs come with 8gb ram is because Apple's own data shows that this is sufficient for the majority of the MBA's intended audience. Case in point - myself. I purchased a base M1 MBA when it was released in 2020, and almost 4 years later, I have not felt like the laptop has been under-specced, nor has it underperformed in any way that was apparent to me. I am a school teacher, and I use my laptop for pretty basic stuff (office apps, chrome + google docs, web browsing, stock apps, occasional video editing etc) and I wager that there are plenty of other people just like me. I am also currently using slightly less than half of the MBA's default 256gb storage.

Likewise, the things I do like about my M1 MBA (its long battery life and great performance) are pretty independent of ram and storage. All other things equal, I am not going to say no to more free ram and storage, but at the same time, I don't believe that additional ram is going to improve my user experience in any meaningful manner, and I do feel it is disingenuous to imply that Apple's 8gb ram computers are deliberately crippled to the point of uselessness just because some people would rather Apple give them more ram for free.

The one concession to this argument is that Apple Intelligence may well throw a wrench into the delicate balance that exists thanks to Apple's tight control over hardware and software. Mac come with 8gb ram standard, and Apple is able to optimise macOS to run well on that little ram (thereby maximising hardware margins), and I guess we will see later this year whether the introduction of Apple Intelligence taxes the OS to the point where 8gb ram proves insufficient to maintain that user experience that Apple users so willingly pay a premium for.

At the same time, there is probably some correlation between people who legitimately need more ram in a Mac, and those who are likely better served with a pro-level Mac computer that also comes with a more powerful processor, a fan for more intense workloads, and more ports (together with support for additional monitors). You argue that this is Apple trying to steer customers towards their more expensive offerings, and I will argue that this is simple Apple being smart about not keeping around build options that would probably be of lower demand. It wasn't until recently that Apple started stocking 16gb-variants of their MBA laptop in Apple Stores, suggesting that in the past, very few people bothered such that it just wasn't worth keeping ready stock of it around.

Which is what I would do if I were in Apple's shoes - decide that certain segments of users are just not worth serving, especially if what they are clamouring for basically boils down to "I want more for less".

The second argument is well - I find it hilarious that some people here like to both accuse Apple of forced obsolescence (deliberating speccing their Macs with less base ram / storage in a bid to make them upgrade more often), while also suggesting that the solution to stagnating Mac sales is to give users more ram and storage, which would probably just make them upgrade less often because their current existing devices are now "too good". I mean, if Macs were that bad, and Apple that greedy, why would I knowingly continue to throw in good money after bad by continuing to get another Mac after my current one bites the dust? Instead, the more logical argument is that Apple devices have never been cheap, but people pay for the experience, not specs, and Apple is again able to offer this through their control over hardware and software, even if their devices do come with less ram on paper. Just like when I see a doctor, I am not interested in which doctor can prescribe me more medication (for less money), but in which doctor is able to prescribe the right medication which addresses my current ailment, whatever the cost (true story).

TL;DR - Apple knows what they are doing.

 

[RumorChaser]

I have a lot of experience with tech in general and a lot corporate corporate computers are bad simply because of the countless corporate trash apps and services companies force into these computers and have to be active in the background all the time, which is the main reason they run slower, have more software problems and have worse battery life than the consumer devices. Consumer variants are also generally friendlier and better looking. They also run much much better and have low failure rates.

Agree with the corporate apps, except business laptops are generally regarded as more durable than consumer ones. These non-Apple computer making companies actually make a living selling warranties (usually 3 years to 5 years) on business machines. If those fail too early they would have to replace computers on their own dime. Consumer grade electronics are generally the worst quality ones, because they only have to warrant it for 1 year (2 in the EU). Companies also like to take every opportunity to increase profit, so the cheaper machines are usually loaded with adware out of the box.

Regarding failure rates, Dell has been doing a **** job on their laptops in the past 6 years no matter how much you pay or whether you're business or consumer. HP and Lenovo are about the same on average, but Lenovo has a bigger variance because they chose to serve both the cheapest and the highest end of the spectrum with quality to match.

 

[RumorChaser]

Apple is the most long term focused company I can think of. Removing incentives to upsell, to quickly sell more low-end models, is the very definition of shortsightedness. While annoying as a customer, from the angle of a business person Apple’s ability to always make it look like the next model up from the one you are looking at is actually the model you should get, is exemplary.

Another thing Apple is remarkable at, is taking the largest market share in the segments with the most profits, while leaving the low margin segments alone.

Except Apple has been adjusting somewhat to the market as well. 20 years ago Macs are strict pro machines in certain industries, you wouldn't buy a Mac from BestBuy or Costco. But today they are also marketed to mass consumers - parents who are sending kids to school, family who are buying for their elderly, etc. These consumers are not savvy enough to know what upgrade they want. If the one they purchase from the store works poorly then they will have a worse image of the Apple brand. Then it would be very shortsighted for Apple to focus on $200 upsell potential but lose a customer and perhaps also their iPhone/iPad/TV/AirPod business. I believe the motivation today is primarily on the AI features Apple is trying to push, and they must have determined that AI software will perform poorly on 8GB of RAM.

Going back to Pro machine market, Apple must have also noticed that 16GB would not be enough for professionals. So they did not get rid of their upsell ability by going with 16GB for base. You speak as if Apple will lose half of their profits by making this move. But really it wouldn't affect their margins very much because people who will not upgrade will not upgrade (but they will have a better experience), and people who will upgrade will still upgrade.

 

[jlc1978]

If those fail too early they would have to replace computers on their own dime.

True, but they have pretty good failure data and so can price warranties to be very profitable, as you point out.

Consumer grade electronics are generally the worst quality ones, because they only have to warrant it for 1 year (2 in the EU).

The Eu 2 years isn’t necessarily a warranty but consumer law and is on the seller, not the manufacturer to do repairs afet 1 year.. if a company has a 1 year commercial warranty, after 1 year you have to go back to the seller and may have to prove the defect existed at time of purchase. So if you buy it in Spain but live in Germany you need to return it to the Spanish seller to exercise your rights under EU consumer law.

Apple offers a 2 year limited consumer warranty, but can, per its TOCs, require you to return it to the country of purchase. So if I buy a Mac in Europe, get my VAT refund, and take it to the US, Apple could say I need to go to back to whetever country I bought it for warranty service. They might not, but their TOCs allow it. They have a worldwide warranty, but IIRC, that i sonly on devices that are charged, not ones that require mains power to run, such as a Mini or iMac.

 

[Velli]

Except Apple has been adjusting somewhat to the market as well. 20 years ago Macs are strict pro machines in certain industries, you wouldn't buy a Mac from BestBuy or Costco. But today they are also marketed to mass consumers - parents who are sending kids to school, family who are buying for their elderly, etc. These consumers are not savvy enough to know what upgrade they want. If the one they purchase from the store works poorly then they will have a worse image of the Apple brand. Then it would be very shortsighted for Apple to focus on $200 upsell potential but lose a customer and perhaps also their iPhone/iPad/TV/AirPod business.

You are making the false assumption that these people, buying the entry models, have a bad experience switch them. Nothing supports that claim. I have seen plenty argue that these computers are bad. I have seen plenty (including myself) who bought one and loved it. I have seen exactly zero people on this forum claim they bought one and regretted it (although now I have of course baited someone out…).

If anything, Apple has been succesful in delivering a good experience to non-savvy customers, BECAUSE they know that these customers don’t need the extra RAM. They put more value in design, nice materials, a good keyboard, a good touchpad, a decent screen, simple to use UI etc etc. If you think these people will turn their back on Apple just because their stuff runs 10% slower, you have no clue what makes these people tick.

 

[Velli]

Why can't you? I happen to agree with what the previous poster wrote. Apple are penny pinching to make an easy profit on devices, but personally I believe it is a crappy self-defeating tactic in the long run because it alienates long term Apple fans like us, and deters potential new buyers from buying Macs.

Believe what you want. I believe you are wrong. There is no evidence to back up your fantasy.

 

[Velli]

Haven’t been following all the rumors, but are new MacBooks likely to be announced in the September event?

Probably not. There’s likely a seperate October event for iPads and Macs.

 

[Velli]

Except that is not Apple's sales approach. Apple does not provide incentives to upsell any item. That would be shortsighted since customers would feel like they were pressured to buy a higher end machine, which makes the relationship adversarial and transactional; vs a relationship where customers have a great experience.

Either I can’t read, or you just argued that Apple’s strategy is not to try to upsell you to the next price bracket? Are you joking? Or did my English just fail me? (I’m not native…)