The only person more dishonest than a politician is a corporate spokesperson. Thankfully this corporation is only selling computers and not poisoning a town's water supply or giving everyone lung cancer. (Though I can't rule out that some of Apple's partners in the electronics manufacturing business might be doing it).
There are professional writers out there that don't need 16GB of ram. Folks that just need to do a presentation.
Since that is how Apple appears to sell their products I don't have a great deal of choice. And since I find their products work great and make me money, I'm fine with it.
I have no argument with what you wrote here. Nowhere on this thread did I criticize Apple's pricing. I'm simply discussing facts. And the fact is they do charge far more for their RAM and SSD upgrades than nearly all other manufacturers. It's very frustrating when people try to argue otherwise, because they're arguing against the obvious.
Obviously people are looking out for their own pockets, that's our job as consumers, to try and make wise purchasing decisions and to compare products based on needs, capability, cost etc. Unfortunately clickbait articles and videos is the way of the world now. But getting caught up in that is not really the point. Ensuring sufficient RAM for your needs is one of the cheapest ways to maintain computing performance. Apple's charging $500 CAD for an extra 16GB of memory (8->24) even though its many many times their cost because some people see $500 worth of value in that upgrade. The goalposts aren't moving, there's just lots of people here and there's more than one net. Discussing and complaining about things we don't like has been the state of humanity since forever, though I think we could all do it with a little less hyperbole.Let them come. All attempting to churn out clickbait pieces for the sake of easy clicks and views.
This isn't Apple's first 1000+ comment controversy here that Apple has weathered through, it won't be its last, and I give it maybe one more week before it blows over and people just move on. The fact that the goalposts keep shifting here means that the critics don't really have a leg to stand on.
Maybe 8gb ram is insufficient for "pros" (whatever that means) and maybe $1600 is too expensive for a laptop to come with only 8 gb ram (again, by whose metric?). It's really up to the individual consumer to determine what specs and price point is suitable for them. What's really happening here is that we have a few people who want extra ram in their Macs, are apparently too cheapskate to shell out the few extra hundred dollars for them, and are attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill and pretending like they are waging a war on behalf of all Apple users who are being cheated by Apple, when it's really their own pockets they are looking out for.
This is the state of Macrumours today.
I’m going to contest that a little bit. Sure, Apple’s RAM prices may be higher than some PC manufacturers, but I wouldn’t say all. Take as a case in point the Microsoft Surface Pro 9 with the i5. Looking at its configurations, they charge $400 to upgrade from 8GB RAM to 16GB RAM. That’s double what Apple charges. And in case you’re wondering, no, they don’t upgrade the CPU as well or anything, that is just for the RAM, you can see for yourself.
Greed......
In ways, the Unified memory makes it worse, considering the CPU's and GPU's now share the memory.
I have to buy an entire new truck to tow more than my current trucks capacity.
It is a superior architecture when you have enough of it. Although the "unified GPU and system memory" implementation that prevents having to constantly copy data between pools is good, it's actually not something that is unique to Apple. A lot of people don't know that Intel actually started doing this in their iGPUs quite a while ago, but because their iGPUs aren't intended for high performance stuff, it never really made that much of a splash.
Didn't they limit the iGPU to a set amount of memory? I'm not sure I remember one that could use a variable amount, but stopped watching that kind of stuff long ago.
There's clearly something more going on in the configurator because upgrading to 32GB of RAM costs $0. From what I can see the base configuration is $999 Core i5 8GB RAM 128GB SSD and you can upgrade to Core i7 16GB RAM 256GB SSD for $1299. For some strange reason Microsoft lets you configure a Core i5 16GB RAM 256GB SSD model for $1399. Its also a 2 lbs. tablet with very different performance expectations than a Macbook Pro.
Sort of, but that can usually be configured. That being said, Intel's iGPUs really don't hold a candle to Apple's offerings, so it's still kinda a silly comparison.
I noticed that on their "configurator" as well. It just felt way more confusing and less granular to me, but I'm not an expert on Microsoft's offerings either I suppose.
Well yeah, but
It didn’t show a 32GB upgrade as $0 for me, 16GB to 32GB upgrade for the i7 (i5 doesn’t have 32GB configuration) was $730. Again, about double what that upgrade costs from Apple. Doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with the configurator, and just assuming something’s wrong with it because it shows a number that doesn’t go with your point isn’t really a sound tact.
The only reason I mentioned it is because its in your screenshot, I don't see that option either.
And on the i5 configuration, you can change just the RAM, checking and double checking that the storage didn’t change, and it’s a $400 difference just changing the RAM from 8GB to 16GB. Both with 256GB of Storage, which didn’t change when I upgraded the RAM, and it still added $400 more to the total.
You need to slow down and fully configure everything before jumping to conclusions. This is what I'm seeing:
Unless they don’t want you to configure that so they price it badly. Or the i7 base spec is the volume model that costs less to produce than small batch/custom configs of i5s.
