8GB RAM in M3 MacBook Pro Proves the Bottleneck in Real-World Tests

[0423MAC]

Almost like all of us who've been arguing about how dumb it was that Apple was selling Pros with 8GB for the last two years in here were proven right.

You are never going to get through to some despite the overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. This debate was settled when Apple retroactively "upgraded" the base M2 MacBook Air to ship with 16GB RAM default at the same price overnight on October 30th, 2024.

Unrelated, but another case is the iPhone 15 doozy. Pushing Apple Intelligence hard, but not compatible with recently released phones with a price range between $800-$1,200. Perhaps that extra 2GB RAM might have squeezed a little too much into their profits or wreck their planned obsolescence strategy.

 

[chucker23n1]

We shouldn’t be living in a world in where a 5 year old computer with 16GB RAM is in a position in where it is better equipped to handle more demanding tasks than expensive computers released later.

Agreed, but the entry-level Air is not an "expensive computer", and it wasn't five years. You're overstating your case.

In the past you could mitigate this issue with upgrades

This is true, but it's not what most consumers actually want.

 

[chucker23n1]

Unrelated, but another case is the iPhone 15 doozy. Pushing Apple Intelligence hard, but not compatible with recently released phones with a price range between $800-$1,200. Perhaps that extra 2GB RAM might have squeezed a little too much into their profits or wreck their planned obsolescence strategy.

Eh, I'm fine with that. Maybe because Apple Intelligence (how are we supposed to abbreviate this stupid term?) isn't that big a deal anyway. Newer hardware comes with newer features.

Where it gets problematic is when the hardware already has specs that severely limit it. I don't personally feel that was the case with the iPhone. An iPhone with 6 GiB RAM isn't enough to run Apple Intelligence, but it's plenty for virtually everything else. A Mac with 8 GiB RAM, OTOH, is not plenty.

 

[Kal Madda]

You are never going to get through to some despite the overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. This debate was settled when Apple retroactively "upgraded" the base M2 MacBook Air to ship with 16GB RAM default at the same price overnight on October 30th, 2024.

Unrelated, but another case is the iPhone 15 doozy. Pushing Apple Intelligence hard, but not compatible with recently released phones with a price range between $800-$1,200. Perhaps that extra 2GB RAM might have squeezed a little too much into their profits or wreck their planned obsolescence strategy.

Nothing is “settled”. And there isn’t “overwhelming evidence” for your position, you are merely interpreting things through your lens, and then concluding your presuppositions are correct. To be clear, we all see things through our lenses, but this doesn’t make anything “settled” in this debate. Plenty of us disagree with your conclusions.

Apple simply choosing to sell a higher base-spec model doesn’t mean that the prior base-spec model was a “bad value”, was “useless”, or that they were being “stingy”… It simply means they decided to up the base spec model. Quite possibly because they plan on bringing a budget MacBook to replace it with an A-series chip. Just because Apple added a Tandem-OLED display panel in the M4 iPad Pro doesn’t mean the prior iPad Pro was garbage. Just because Apple updates the M-Series chip in their computers every release doesn’t mean the prior M-Series chip was a “bad value”. That’s a logical fallacy. You interpret a change in specs as an “acknowledgment” that you were right and that the prior models were “poor value”, but that does not logically follow. That’s merely the way you choose to interpret it through your lens…

Sometimes new major features require new hardware. People like to claim the RAM is the limiting factor, but there are other factors at play as well, such as CPU, Neural Engine, etc. all of which on the older models would likely make major negative impacts on performance, but particularly the older Neural Engines would probably make a decent impact on how it could run.

And the “planned obsolescence” arguments are old. Apple supports their hardware with many years of updates. Things get old. That’s the way things work, especially in tech. And at some point, old hardware won’t run new features. That’s just the way things work…

 

[jlc1978]

And the “planned obsolescence” arguments are old. Apple supports their hardware with many years of updates. Things get old. That’s the way things work, especially in tech. And at some point, old hardware won’t run new features. That’s just the way things work…

And yet they still do what they did when purchased. As you point out, tech has a lifespan, but that doesn't mean it magically stops working.

You are never going to get through to some despite the overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. This debate was settled when Apple retroactively "upgraded" the base M2 MacBook Air to ship with 16GB RAM default at the same price overnight on October 30th, 2024.

So if Apple suddenly uped it to 24 or 32, all those people who argued 16 was the minimum would be proven wrong?

Edit: Typo fix

 

[Kal Madda]

And yet they still do what they did when purchased. As you point out, tech has a lifespan, but that doesn't mean it magically stops working.



So if Apple suddenly used it to 24 or 32, all those people who argued 16 was the minimum would be proven wrong?

Exactly. 8GB Macs still do everything they did when customers bought them. Plus additional things with software updates Apple has provided. 👍🏻

Yeah, the problem is that they are viewing things through their interpretive lens. When Apple changes a spec, it isn’t an “acknowledgment” that the prior gen was “useless”, or a “bad value”. It just means they changed the spec. When Apple releases an M5 chip, it won’t be an “acknowledgment” that the M4 is junk. And if people are currently arguing that the M4 chip is a “bad value” or “useless”, Apple releasing an M5 chip won’t “prove them right”…

 

[chucker23n1]

So if Apple suddenly uped it to 24 or 32, all those people who argued 16 was the minimum would be proven wrong?

Eventually (5 years? 10 years?), they should obviously do exactly that. Right now, I think 16 is a perfectly fine base for the vast majority of users. I would've been fine with 12, too. 8, not so much.

The current weakness in the specs isn't the RAM any more; it's the storage. Some will argue that's OK, because 1) you can always connect external storage (though that's awkward and dataloss-prone on a laptop), and 2) lots of people have the bulk of their storage in the cloud anyway. Neither holds true for the RAM.

 

[Kal Madda]

Eventually (5 years? 10 years?), they should obviously do exactly that. Right now, I think 16 is a perfectly fine base for the vast majority of users. I would've been fine with 12, too. 8, not so much.

The current weakness in the specs isn't the RAM any more; it's the storage. Some will argue that's OK, because 1) you can always connect external storage (though that's awkward and dataloss-prone on a laptop), and 2) lots of people have the bulk of their storage in the cloud anyway. Neither holds true for the RAM.

Here though, people are trying to argue that Apple changing a spec is somehow “proof” that the prior spec was “useless”, a “bad value”, or that Apple was being “greedy”… And this doesn’t follow. Because Apple updates specs in their computers all the time, and merely updating specs isn’t some kind of “evidence” that the prior specs were “useless” or a “bad value”. The 8GB Apple Silicon Macs are a great option for those who don’t need excess RAM, and want to save money. And they’re quite capable, as I have proven in this thread with multiple screenshots of heavy apps most users wouldn’t use in the first place, or even expect to use on a base-spec computer, all running great on an 8GB M1 Mac…

 

[chucker23n1]

Here though, people are trying to argue that Apple changing a spec is somehow “proof” that the prior spec was “useless”, a “bad value”, or that Apple was being “greedy”… And this doesn’t follow.

Indeed it does not.

I would say it was a bad value, but Apple doesn't price for good value.

As for useless, I wouldn't quite go that far.

I will say that their move to upgrade the M3 and M2(!) base configs was unusual. Does it follow that the previous offerings were "useless"? No. A little underspecced? IMHO, yes.

Because Apple updates specs in their computers all the time, and merely updating specs isn’t some kind of “evidence” that the prior specs were “useless” or a “bad value”.

Yep.

The 8GB Apple Silicon Macs are a great option for those who don’t need excess RAM, and want to save money. And they’re quite capable, as I have proven in this thread with multiple screenshots of heavy apps

Yeah, well, that's where you lose me.

 

[Kal Madda]

Indeed it does not.

I would say it was a bad value, but Apple doesn't price for good value.

As for useless, I wouldn't quite go that far.

I will say that their move to upgrade the M3 and M2(!) base configs was unusual. Does it follow that the previous offerings were "useless"? No. A little underspecced? IMHO, yes.



Yep.



Yeah, well, that's where you lose me.

I respect your opinion, though I disagree. 👍🏻. But I don’t understand “that’s where you lose me.” How is me saying that I believe it’s a good value for many people who don’t need excess RAM losing you? And I shared tons of screenshots and evidence that prove that heavy software’s most people don’t use, let alone on a base spec, can all run fine on the 8GB M1 Mac…

 

[henkie]

heavy software’s most people don’t use, let alone on a base spec, can all run fine on the 8GB M1 Mac…

Yes it runs. But how well? The base m2 had a slow ssd. Heck, even I start to notice (this is 16gb M1 Pro) when I am running several apps, some of them really start to slow down. I check my monitor: yep, high memory pressure. Case in point for software: Blender base: 8GB needed. Recommended 32gb and Apple Silicon (no mention that it needs to be m3 or higher).
Of course, a base 8GB m1 air is still great for emailing etc. Build quality is still great. But where Apple really lost me is the 8GB on a M3 MBP. Seriously, what is the point of that thing? Before you are hitting the ceiling of what the m3 can do you will hit the 8GB limit, really fast. A refurbished 16gb m1pro is simply better value. Luckily, Apple then made all Macs 16gb, without added cost. Nullifying the argument that this additional 8GB was really that more expensive for Apple. And future proofing those computers. And lo and behold: Mac sales went up last quarter. The 16gb Macs are simply to easy to recommend now. 8GB: not so much…

 

[chucker23n1]

Yes it runs. But how well? The base m2 had a slow ssd.

I really think the reporting on that is exaggerated. Yes, the base configs had a slower SSD (by virtue of being one chip instead of two), but it's not that slow.

Heck, even I start to notice (this is 16gb M1 Pro) when I am running several apps, some of them really start to slow down. I check my monitor: yep, high memory pressure.

This is the bigger issue. No SSD is going to fix that. Sure, a 6 GiB/s SSD will do better than a 3 GiB/s SSD. But the RAM on the M1 Pro runs at 204.8 GB/s. SSD won't be catching up with that kind of throughput for years to come.

I guess you can make the argument that 16 was a bit low for a $1,999 device. I personally have that Mac, except with 32. I can get it to its limits if I want to, but it does have some room to breathe.

Before you are hitting the ceiling of what the m3 can do you will hit the 8GB limit, really fast. A refurbished 16gb m1pro is simply better value.

For most users? I would disagree.

The M3 Air is fanless, and generally draws less power. It also has faster CPU and GPU cores. And perhaps critically, the M1 Pro has only two e-cores (and they're weak e-cores, to boot), whereas the M3 has four of them, and much faster ones. As a result, the M3 has better battery life, as those e-cores can take care of far more background tasks — even though the M3 only has half as many p-cores.

lo and behold: Mac sales went up last quarter. The 16gb Macs are simply to easy to recommend now. 8GB: not so much…

I agree that they're easier to recommend. I do not agree that there's much causation with sales numbers. The intersection of people who buy a base Mac and also care about its specs is small.

 

[Kal Madda]

Yes it runs. But how well? The base m2 had a slow ssd. Heck, even I start to notice (this is 16gb M1 Pro) when I am running several apps, some of them really start to slow down. I check my monitor: yep, high memory pressure. Case in point for software: Blender base: 8GB needed. Recommended 32gb and Apple Silicon (no mention that it needs to be m3 or higher).
Of course, a base 8GB m1 air is still great for emailing etc. Build quality is still great. But where Apple really lost me is the 8GB on a M3 MBP. Seriously, what is the point of that thing? Before you are hitting the ceiling of what the m3 can do you will hit the 8GB limit, really fast. A refurbished 16gb m1pro is simply better value. Luckily, Apple then made all Macs 16gb, without added cost. Nullifying the argument that this additional 8GB was really that more expensive for Apple. And future proofing those computers. And lo and behold: Mac sales went up last quarter. The 16gb Macs are simply to easy to recommend now. 8GB: not so much…

It runs great. It runs several heavy niche apps that most people would never use in the first place, nor expect to run well on a base spec computer in the first place, and it runs those softwares simultaneously without issue… Most base-spec customers aren’t running heavier softwares like that…

The M2 SSD thing was very exaggerated. It is not that much different, just as others pointed out…

The point is that some want the nice display, ports and other nice hardware, but want to save some money, and don’t need excess RAM that would be overkill for them. The point is that pros who have workflows that don’t need gobs of extra RAM can also benefit from the nicer display, sound system, extra ports, etc.

And a refurbished M1 Pro is not necessarily a better value. The M3 is better in many regards, it has more performance, better efficiency, longer battery runtime, native dual monitor support when in clamshell mode, etc., plus it will most likely get more years of software updates since it’s newer. There are many good reasons to go with an 8GB M3 MacBook Pro… And I will happily recommend them to those who want the nicer hardware of the pro models, but don’t need excess RAM, they provide a great value for such users.

No argument was “nullified”…

And where is the non-subjective evidence that Mac sale increases are tied to the RAM spec? There is none… That is merely the way you see it and interpret it. The truth is, the M1 models are beginning to age more, so we were bound to see some increase from those who wanted to upgrade their M1 to the M4. Heck, I wanted to upgrade from my M1 iPad Pro to the M4 iPad Pro, and the M1 iPad Pro came out about a year later than the M1 Mac, and the M4 iPad Pro came out about a year earlier than the M4 MacBooks… So Mac users who bought the M1 Macs when they came out have held onto them even longer than I did my M1 iPad Pro… A rise in sales isn’t directly correlated with a minor spec change, I doubt that was the deciding reason for most people when they chose to buy an M4 Mac…

8GB models are very easy to recommend, and I will continue to do so.

 

[jlc1978]

Of course, a base 8GB m1 air is still great for emailing etc. Build quality is still great. But where Apple really lost me is the 8GB on a M3 MBP. Seriously, what is the point of that thing? Before you are hitting the ceiling of what the m3 can do you will hit the 8GB limit, really fast.

I agree the Bps should have come with 16GB, if only to better differentiate them from Airs. Other than the ports, I never thought the base MBP was worth the premium over an Air; especially if you put the added price to more Ram or storage on an Air.

Yes it runs. But how well? The base m2 had a slow ssd.

That was a non-issue for most users. That was, IMHO, the typically overwrought hand ringing by forum posters and had no relevance to most users real world experience.

Any difference in performance was likely never noticed in most cases since they are not routinely reading/writing large files that get bottlenecked by ssd speed.

If someone's use case resulted in bogging down the base spec model, the need to get a more powerful machine tailored to their use specs.

Luckily, Apple then made all Macs 16gb, without added cost. Nullifying the argument that this additional 8GB was really that more expensive for Apple.

The cost vs price of the added RAM was never a real issue, cost has nothing to do with price. Apple could probably go to 32 or even 64 for very little added costs.

It was a way to generate more revenue by segmenting the market. If enough people buy the upgrades, even though they are expensive, you generate more revenue than if you simply made the base configuration with more memory. Apple knows the sales numbers for each configuration, and can use that to determine the sweet spot for memory and price.

Eventually, new features and a more powerful OS will need more memory, and then Apple can simply upgrade the base model and still offer upgrades for those who need it; and simply make the top upgrade more than before if they want.

I agree that they're easier to recommend. I do not agree that there's much causation with sales numbers. The intersection of people who buy a base Mac and also care about its specs is small.

Most Mac buyers simply want a machine that does what they need at a price they can afford; the don't get in tho the measurebation so common on user forums.

 

[Kal Madda]

I really think the reporting on that is exaggerated. Yes, the base configs had a slower SSD (by virtue of being one chip instead of two), but it's not that slow.



This is the bigger issue. No SSD is going to fix that. Sure, a 6 GiB/s SSD will do better than a 3 GiB/s SSD. But the RAM on the M1 Pro runs at 204.8 GB/s. SSD won't be catching up with that kind of throughput for years to come.

I guess you can make the argument that 16 was a bit low for a $1,999 device. I personally have that Mac, except with 32. I can get it to its limits if I want to, but it does have some room to breathe.



For most users? I would disagree.

The M3 Air is fanless, and generally draws less power. It also has faster CPU and GPU cores. And perhaps critically, the M1 Pro has only two e-cores (and they're weak e-cores, to boot), whereas the M3 has four of them, and much faster ones. As a result, the M3 has better battery life, as those e-cores can take care of far more background tasks — even though the M3 only has half as many p-cores.



I agree that they're easier to recommend. I do not agree that there's much causation with sales numbers. The intersection of people who buy a base Mac and also care about its specs is small.

Yes, I agree there. The M2 SSD thing was over-exaggerated. Essentially clickbait YouTubers had to get some more clicks by inventing an artificial scandal, like they so often do…

I disagree. For some with specific needs that are more demanding on RAM, sure, I think you should get the model with the headroom that you need. The base-spec option is not designed for everyone. But I believe that for the majority of base-spec users, certainly the majority of people I have recommended base-spec models to, this is not going to be an issue… The 8GB models have plenty of headroom for many people. Even with my heavier workflow, 8GB is more than enough, and I have a significantly heavier workflow than the average user: with graphic design, 3D sculpting/modeling, etc…

Also agree here, the M3 is better than the M1 for many people, and just telling them “buy an older M1 Pro” isn’t always good advice. If you already have an M1, or are after a very budget device, then sure, I would say get an M1 MacBook Air or maybe an M1 Mac Mini. But otherwise, I don’t know that I would go with a 2020/2021 computer on the higher end. If you’re looking at a pro model, you might as well get at least an M2, but really I think most people want to get as new as they can afford. And really, even on the lower end I would try to get at least an M2 model as well.

I also agree that there is likely not causation with sales numbers. I doubt that RAM spec was the thing that drove sales…

 

[chucker23n1]

The cost vs price of the added RAM was never a real issue, cost has nothing to do with price.

Yes and no. Yes, people are too hung up on the cost — while it's true that 16 only costs ~5 bucks more than 8, that's not really how you define a consumer price.

But OTOH, there comes a point where Apple not simply eating up the additional 5 bucks becomes hard to justify, and I guess they've decided that point was last year's October.

Apple could probably go to 32 or even 64 for very little added costs.

Yep.

Size	Cost	Cost per GiB
4 GiB	15.27 €	3.82 €
6 GiB	23.52 €	3.92 €
8 GiB	33.50 €	4.19 €
12 GiB	40.77 €	3.40 €
16 GiB	66.33 €	4.15 €
24 GiB	120.51 €	5.02 €

These are a mix of different vendors (including Micron and Winbond; critically, not Apple's seemingly preferred SG Hynix) and speeds (including LPDDR4, which would be too slow), but the prices don't seem to vary much between vendors and speeds. You can see the relatively high density of 24 GiB makes it pricier per GiB, but not by that much.

So if Apple were to go from the current base config (which I think is 2x8, not 1x16) to 50% more (2x12), it really just costs them 14.54 € more (40.77€*2 - 33.50€*2).

But as you say, cost and price aren't the same. There's no reason right now for Apple to offer such an upgrade for free. Should they price the BTO option at the current $200, for a margin of almost 93%? Would a $100 BTO option be fairer (still an 85% margin!)? Perhaps.

Apple knows the sales numbers for each configuration, and can use that to determine the sweet spot for memory and price.

Yep.

Most Mac buyers simply want a machine that does what they need at a price they can afford; the don't get in tho the measurebation so common on user forums.

Yep.

 

[Kal Madda]

I agree the Bps should have come with 16GB, if only to better differentiate them from Airs. Other than the ports, I never thought the base MBP was worth the premium over an Air; especially if you put the added price to more Ram or storage on an Air.



That was a non-issue for most users. That was, IMHO, the typically overwrought hand ringing by forum posters and had no relevance to most users real world experience.

Any difference in performance was likely never noticed in most cases since they are not routinely reading/writing large files that get bottlenecked by ssd speed.

If someone's use case resulted in bogging down the base spec model, the need to get a more powerful machine tailored to their use specs.



The cost vs price of the added RAM was never a real issue, cost has nothing to do with price. Apple could probably go to 32 or even 64 for very little added costs.

It was a way to generate more revenue by segmenting the market. If enough people buy the upgrades, even though they are expensive, you generate more revenue than if you simply made the base configuration with more memory. Apple knows the sales numbers for each configuration, and can use that to determine the sweet spot for memory and price.

Eventually, new features and a more powerful OS will need more memory, and then Apple can simply upgrade the base model and still offer upgrades for those who need it; and simply make the top upgrade more than before if they want.



Most Mac buyers simply want a machine that does what they need at a price they can afford; the don't get in tho the measurebation so common on user forums.

I don’t think the MacBook Pros should have had a different RAM spec. Apple added the standard M-Series non-pro/max chips to bring down the base price of the MacBook Pro lineup and make it more accessible. And I think it makes sense in that case to essentially offer a MacBook Air with added refinements. Same chip, same RAM spec, but nicer hardware. And that’s what they did, and I think that makes a lot of sense. And I would mostly agree, I think for many, the MacBook Air is probably the better option. But for those who want the nicer display, more ports, nicer sound system, better battery runtime, etc., the MacBook Pro models offer several advantages you simply don’t get with the MacBook Air… It’s similar to the iPad situation. For the vast majority of iPad users/customers, the iPad Air is likely the best option, especially since you can now get it in a 13” configuration as well. But there are also many non-pros that still want the 13” iPad Pro because of its Tandem OLED display, and some of the other nicer hardware like FaceID. For some in the MacBook world, it’s the same thing, the MacBook Pro offers a nicer display with the MiniLED and higher refresh rate than the Air does. So there are many prospective customers who either are average users/non-pros who want the nicer hardware, but can’t afford the higher price points the base MacBook Pros used to ship at, or who are pros, but are pros who don’t need excess RAM, but want or would benefit from the nicer hardware. I can tell you one thing, as a graphic designer, I care far more about the display quality than the RAM spec (so long as it’s enough to run my software, and 8GB is plenty). And I believe that most consumers likely have a similar mindset. When customers go to buy an iPhone Pro, I don’t see them asking about the RAM spec and whether or not it’s double the standard iPhone…

Yes, exactly. Far over-exaggerated, and propped up into an artificial scandal by content creators who need to keep engagement, and scandal is the best way to do so…. Also happens to be the same tactic several content creators chose on making an artificial scandal out of the base RAM spec…

I disagree a bit there. Cost absolutely does have something to do with price. At least to some degree or other. How much more it costs to put 16GB in the base spec models vs 8GB, I don’t know, nor does anyone else here. But it almost certainly does cost more… 8GB models provide plenty of value for many people. And that is why I will continue to recommend them… But I definitely agree that Apple has all the data here, and they are in the best position to determine what specs are best for them to deliver, and where the sweet spots are.

And this exactly. At the end of the day, I think most customers just want a Mac that works, and don’t really care much about things like RAM spec unless they have a very specific use-case that requires more. Just like most customers don’t even ask about or care about the RAM spec in their iPhone…

 

[Kal Madda]

Yes and no. Yes, people are too hung up on the cost — while it's true that 16 only costs ~5 bucks more than 8, that's not really how you define a consumer price.

But OTOH, there comes a point where Apple not simply eating up the additional 5 bucks becomes hard to justify, and I guess they've decided that point was last year's October.



Yep.

Size	Cost	Cost per GiB
4 GiB	15.27 €	3.82 €
6 GiB	23.52 €	3.92 €
8 GiB	33.50 €	4.19 €
12 GiB	40.77 €	3.40 €
16 GiB	66.33 €	4.15 €
24 GiB	120.51 €	5.02 €

These are a mix of different vendors (including Micron and Winbond; critically, not Apple's seemingly preferred SG Hynix) and speeds (including LPDDR4, which would be too slow), but the prices don't seem to vary much between vendors and speeds. You can see the relatively high density of 24 GiB makes it pricier per GiB, but not by that much.

So if Apple were to go from the current base config (which I think is 2x8, not 1x16) to 50% more (2x12), it really just costs them 14.54 € more (40.77€*2 - 33.50€*2).

But as you say, cost and price aren't the same. There's no reason right now for Apple to offer such an upgrade for free. Should they price the BTO option at the current $200, for a margin of almost 93%? Would a $100 BTO option be fairer (still an 85% margin!)? Perhaps.



Yep.



Yep.

We don’t know how much Apple pays for their RAM… Period.

 

[jlc1978]

I disagree a bit there. Cost absolutely does have something to do with price. At least to some degree or other.

I get your point, mine was that price is determined by perceived value by the customer, costs simply determines margins. Which is why I said that the costs were irrelevant to the price of RAM upgrades; or to the fairness of Apple's pricing.

How much more it costs to put 16GB in the base spec models vs 8GB, I don’t know, nor does anyone else here. But it almost certainly does cost more… 8GB models provide plenty of value for many people. And that is why I will continue to recommend them…

I agree. The 8GB models are more than enough for many use cases, and it makes no sense to spend money that returns no added value. Some argue 'future proofing,' but for many users there is no need because their needs don't really change and what worked yesterday will work tomorrow. The FOMO is strong in some...

 

[Kal Madda]

I get your point, mine was that price is determined by perceived value by the customer, costs simply determines margins. Which is why I said that the costs were irrelevant to the price of RAM upgrades; or to the fairness of Apple's pricing.


I agree. The 8GB models are more than enough for many use cases, and it makes no sense to spend money that returns no added value. Some argue 'future proofing,' but for many users there is no need because their needs don't really change and what worked yesterday will work tomorrow. The FOMO is strong in some...

Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, I definitely agree that price is not primarily determined by “cost”, but by the perceived value to the customer. 👍🏻. Sorry I completely misunderstood the point you were trying to make before, that makes much more sense. 👍🏻

And yeah, that exactly. There’s no point in paying extra for things that don’t return added value for the prospective buyer. 👍🏻. And yeah, many people’s use-cases don’t really change that dramatically, that’s a good point. 👍🏻. That trend is, indeed, odd to me. I say buy the computer that works for you. If that’s an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac, great! If it’s a 16GB Apple Silicon Mac, also great! If it’s a 64GB Apple Silicon Mac, that’s also good. And if it’s an iPad, also great! That’s why Apple provides different products and RAM configurations, because different ones suit different people. 👍🏻

 

[henkie]

If that’s an 8GB Apple Silicon Mac, great!

Until you find out you like to do some memory-heavy stuff (for your job for example) or play an AAA on your 2000 euro M3 MBP and you cannot because Apple cheap skated on the ram. There is no way to upgrade the ram after the fact.

That was a non-issue for most users.

Funny that not that long ago that the speed of SSDs (when it was much faster than Windows laptops) was handwringing for the Mac fans. But now suddenly it does not matter anymore.

The intersection of people who buy a base Mac and also care about its specs is small.

Yes, but haven't you never been asked for "what computer should I buy"? I have not recommended these base macs for colleagues because of 8GB, and they did not bother to get the 16GB, because the base already stretched their budget...So there you go, another lost MBP/MBA sale or two down the drain. Now, I would happily recommend them the base models. Of course, anecdotical. But even people not in the know can see "8GB" Macbook Air for 1200 euros, or for the same price you have a decent 16GB windows laptop. And will chose the latter because they have heard that ram matters. Apple must have felt it in their numbers, upped to 16GB and now is outpacing the PC market again.

 

[chucker23n1]

We don’t know how much Apple pays for their RAM… Period.

Absolutely no way is Apple going to be paying more than small businesses, unless Tim Cook is an operations idiot, which famously he isn't.

Until you find out you like to do some memory-heavy stuff (for your job for example) or play an AAA on your 2000 euro M3 MBP

I really don't think there are many people who were expecting to play games and are now shocked it isn't a good device for that, though.

As for for job purposes: I've given even a sales guy a 16 GiB config. He probably mostly runs web apps and MS Office on it, but 8 just seemed a bit cramped to me.

Funny that not that long ago that the speed of SSDs (when it was much faster than Windows laptops) was handwringing for the Mac fans. But now suddenly it does not matter anymore.

I think you're overindexing on what some randos on the Internet say. Nobody ever chose a Mac because of its SSD speed. It's nice that, for example, the M1 Pro MBP came with a 7 GiB/s SSD — but would I have bought it if it had only been 2? Yes. Would I have spent $100 extra for 7 instead of 2? Probably not.

But we aren't even talking about that. We're talking about the low end of Mac laptops. There, SSD speeds matter even less. Or they would, anyway, if it weren't for the RAM having been quite limited for a while, causing a lot of swapping. But even so, I just don't think it makes a huge difference. Swapping is slow and should be avoided. It's fine-ish if it happens during idle, but it destroys your performance if it happens as you're working.

Yes, but haven't you never been asked for "what computer should I buy"?

Sure, and if the scenario was "I have a budget of $1,000 - $1,500, what Mac should I get", ca. 2023? I would've said absolutely upgrade the RAM to 16. You can always expand the storage externally, but the RAM you're stuck with.

Whereas now, the base config is… fine. I have other quibbles with the Air (just the other week, a client sighed because they couldn't connect a TV via HDMI; luckily, we have an adapter; also, 256 GB SSD is starting to get a little silly, too), but in other ways, it's a good computer. The SoC is almost overpowered, the RAM is fast, the case is high-quality, the trackpad is best-in-class, and so on. So if someone were to ask the same question today, I'd say stick with the 16, but upgrade the SSD.

I have not recommended these base macs for colleagues because of 8GB, and they did not bother to get the 16GB, because the base already stretched their budget...So there you go, another lost MBP/MBA sale or two down the drain. Now, I would happily recommend them the base models. Of course, anecdotical. But even people not in the know can see "8GB" Macbook Air for 1200 euros, or for the same price you have a decent 16GB windows laptop. And will chose the latter because they have heard that ram matters. Apple must have felt it in their numbers, upped to 16GB and now is outpacing the PC market again.

I think you're overestimating how much pressure they're feeling from the competition, but overall, yes.

 

[Kal Madda]

Until you find out you like to do some memory-heavy stuff (for your job for example) or play an AAA on your 2000 euro M3 MBP and you cannot because Apple cheap skated on the ram. There is no way to upgrade the ram after the fact.


Funny that not that long ago that the speed of SSDs (when it was much faster than Windows laptops) was handwringing for the Mac fans. But now suddenly it does not matter anymore.


Yes, but haven't you never been asked for "what computer should I buy"? I have not recommended these base macs for colleagues because of 8GB, and they did not bother to get the 16GB, because the base already stretched their budget...So there you go, another lost MBP/MBA sale or two down the drain. Now, I would happily recommend them the base models. Of course, anecdotical. But even people not in the know can see "8GB" Macbook Air for 1200 euros, or for the same price you have a decent 16GB windows laptop. And will chose the latter because they have heard that ram matters. Apple must have felt it in their numbers, upped to 16GB and now is outpacing the PC market again.

If you’re already using a computer with 8GB RAM (many are), then that makes no sense. And people can always test things on it before they buy it. But I already demonstrated that an 8G M1 Mac can run heavy apps that basically nobody would expect to run on a base spec model… And most people don’t expect to run heavy AAA titles on a base-spec laptop…

Uh, no… That was never the main benefit of Apple Silicon. And besides, people in this thread never made such claims about the SSD being the most important differentiator... And the SSD is still faster in non-base-spec models anyways…

Are you not a Mac fan? (Honest, not trying to upset you, but you keep speaking of Mac fans as if you aren’t one yourself, so just curious)

Yes, I have, and I have happily recommended the 8GB Apple Silicon Macs, and will continue to do so. And I don’t believe that most average users really care about RAM spec, they just want a computer that works. Just like I don’t see iPhone customers worrying over RAM specs…

And that’s all mere conjecture… There is nothing to suggest any of that is true, zero evidence. Customer satisfaction with Apple Silicon Macs has been consistently high, hitting record highs (before the M4 Macs). Stores were selling tons of base spec models. The MacBook Air was the best-selling laptop with the M2 with an 8GB base spec, with the MacBook Pro being the second best-selling laptop. There is zero evidence to support the idea that Macs weren’t selling well, let alone that supposed “poor sales” were somehow due to one particular spec. You simply cannot prove any such claim…

 

[Kal Madda]

Absolutely no way is Apple going to be paying more than small businesses, unless Tim Cook is an operations idiot, which famously he isn't.



I really don't think there are many people who were expecting to play games and are now shocked it isn't a good device for that, though.

As for for job purposes: I've given even a sales guy a 16 GiB config. He probably mostly runs web apps and MS Office on it, but 8 just seemed a bit cramped to me.



I think you're overindexing on what some randos on the Internet say. Nobody ever chose a Mac because of its SSD speed. It's nice that, for example, the M1 Pro MBP came with a 7 GiB/s SSD — but would I have bought it if it had only been 2? Yes. Would I have spent $100 extra for 7 instead of 2? Probably not.

But we aren't even talking about that. We're talking about the low end of Mac laptops. There, SSD speeds matter even less. Or they would, anyway, if it weren't for the RAM having been quite limited for a while, causing a lot of swapping. But even so, I just don't think it makes a huge difference. Swapping is slow and should be avoided. It's fine-ish if it happens during idle, but it destroys your performance if it happens as you're working.



Sure, and if the scenario was "I have a budget of $1,000 - $1,500, what Mac should I get", ca. 2023? I would've said absolutely upgrade the RAM to 16. You can always expand the storage externally, but the RAM you're stuck with.

Whereas now, the base config is… fine. I have other quibbles with the Air (just the other week, a client sighed because they couldn't connect a TV via HDMI; luckily, we have an adapter; also, 256 GB SSD is starting to get a little silly, too), but in other ways, it's a good computer. The SoC is almost overpowered, the RAM is fast, the case is high-quality, the trackpad is best-in-class, and so on. So if someone were to ask the same question today, I'd say stick with the 16, but upgrade the SSD.



I think you're overestimating how much pressure they're feeling from the competition, but overall, yes.

We don’t know how much they pay. That’s simply fact. And you even said that the chips you’re looking at aren’t the chips that Apple uses, and have lesser specs. Besides, from some teardowns, it looks like Apple uses custom chips, because they have a number that doesn’t match any general production chips. My guess is that they’re built to certain tolerances and such specifically for Apple’s application, just like Apple doesn’t usually buy a generic display panel from LG and such. How much that costs, who knows, only people familiar with it inside Apple know that. But that’s my point, no one should be making truth claims about something we cannot possibly know. All that amounts to is speculation at best.

Yeah, I agree there. I highly doubt that anyone ever bought a base-spec MacBook expecting to play heavy AAA games, especially when many of those titles didn’t even exist on the Mac… Besides, I’ve run the Windows version of Steam on my 8GB M1 Mac via a free emulator called Whiskey. It runs fine, and I’ve even run heavy-ish 3D titles like a game called Ranch Simulator on there in emulation. I’m sure there are some heavier games that wouldn’t run as well, but for a base spec, the 8GB is actually quite capable in terms of games, there are plenty of games that can run on it very well natively…

I think 8GB is plenty for many job applications. I have seen many use 8GB models for work without issue…

This as well. The thing that sets Apple Silicon apart isn’t SSD speed, but performance to efficiency ratio, less heat while running, etc.

Swap memory is a normal and expected functionality in a computer for probably a couple decades now… It isn’t something to avoid at all costs. It’s a normal function of a computer. And most software on the 8GB M1 Mac doesn’t even require swap memory. It’s only if you have gobs of apps and browser tabs open at once when you would come anywhere close to using swap memory… And even then, swap memory doesn’t make much noticeable difference in performance. And as I demonstrated before with screenshots, I ran several very heavy apps simultaneously on my 8GB M1 Mac, and they all ran fine, no noticeable slowdowns in performance, no beachball of doom, no crashing, the computer didn’t burst into flame, etc. It ran, and it ran well… And most wouldn’t even expect to run heavy apps like that on a base spec laptop, let alone running them all simultaneously…

256GB of storage is more than enough for a base spec, there’s nothing “silly” about that… And just as some on my side of this debate predicted, the other side is already moving the goalposts and finding the next spec to go after and claim as “inadequate”… Some should just admit it, they want the highest spec model at the price point of the base-spec model, because they don’t want to just pay for the spec they want or need…

 

[jlc1978]

Funny that not that long ago that the speed of SSDs (when it was much faster than Windows laptops) was handwringing for the Mac fans. But now suddenly it does not matter anymore.

And as I said, most users didn't know or care about SSDs, the whining was from a handful of people in forums who like to make a big deal ot of something that doesn't matter to most users.

Yes, but haven't you never been asked for "what computer should I buy"? I have not recommended these base macs for colleagues because of 8GB,

I get asked that a lot and my first question is "How do you plan to use it?" I've recommended a lot of different options, as well as not upgrading because their current machine is plenty for their use case.
I recommend computers based on what someone needs, not what I think they need, but you do you.

and they did not bother to get the 16GB, because the base already stretched their budget...So there you go, another lost MBP/MBA sale or two down the drain.

Which Apple doesn't care about because they're about margins, not chasing every last sale.

As for for job purposes: I've given even a sales guy a 16 GiB config. He probably mostly runs web apps and MS Office on it, but 8 just seemed a bit cramped to me.

That seems like a waste of money if they don't need 16G for their use case.

Some should just admit it, they want the highest spec model at the price point of the base-spec model, because they don’t want to just pay for the spec they want or need…

Exactly. I'd love a top of the line fully tricked out MBP at the base MBP price, but it isn't happening.

While I think Apple's upgrade prices are high, they can get them because they have differentiated the Mac from the broader commodity PC market. While they need to increase specs overtime for performance and competitive reasons, they do it on their own timeline.

Edit:Typo