Maybe they are giving a $200 discount for taking 8gb less ram.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I actually did "partially switch", after 20+ years being primary Mac user, as of last summer my primary machine is Windows laptop. I still have a number of Macs and other Apple devices and will continue to do so but Apple did not get my money this time.
Performance drops off a cliff with even a few tabs open while doing something intensive in the background on 8GB
I'd say for almost anyone who is getting a Macbook Pro for more than the very basics for some reason, just get 16
Check out the hardware requirements of some of the latest games on Steam
- MINIMUM 8 GB
- Recommended 16 GB
Well people on Macs were never playing the latest demanding games anyway.
IT's a non point. mac gaming was and still is an oxymoron.
The point of the Apple execs comments was much more general sales pitch. NOt a tech talk. IT was come and check out our machines. 8gb M3 might do circles around your 16gb Windows pc.
You'll also be limited with a base M3 on games, compared to a machine with a discrete graphics card. M3 Pro closes the gap, but it's a pity you need to fork out for all the CPU cores of the Max just to get good graphical performance, whether you need that for your workflow or for games.
Apple has been super focused on gaming as of late in their keynotes, so I see nothing odd about that user mentioning gaming.
It might not be a point for you. That doesn't make it a "non-point". And those companies aren't putting resources into releasing versions that don't sell.
My M1 8GB went back. It would sometime slow to a crawl on the apps (not games) I was running on it. It was clearly memory related. My 16gb windows machine runs rings around that.
I ddin't say it was odd. It's just neither here nor there. ie a non-point. Because virtually no one was playing the latest demanding games on their Macs anyway.
And because the Apple exec isn't making the claim that 8gb is the same as 16gb. That's the internet twisting and running away with his words as the internet is akin to do.
Apple has always come out of the woodwork and touted gaming here and there.
Is it different this time? Doubt it, but admittedly the series M chip makes the average Mac more gaming capable and that translation middleware like the SteamDeck has seems to be decent at making Windows gaming play on a Linux/Unix environment.
But the latest demanding games on an MBA? I don't think even getting 16gb is going to change the reality of that.
I stated the reason why it is a non-point. Nothing to do with me.
What companies aren't putting resources into releasing what versions? Too vague for me to understand what your point is there.
I have a 8gb M1 Mini. IT clearly works great for a ton of stuff. LIke any computer, it isn't without limits.
Obviously the majority of people are fine with it or it would be different. Apple caters to the majority...not the vocal minority.
Thanks for posting this. I did not expect such a huge performance difference. It shows that the Pro base model is really just there for the price optics. If you want to do anything "Pro" with that machine you absolutely have to upgrade RAM.
Just grateful knowing my 8GB are the best that they can be. Thanks Apple. 🙏 😍
It was true then and it's even more true today. 8GB is not enough anymore. It's one thing to have an 8GB computer and just trying to nurse it along as far as you can before upgrading and it's entirely another thing to buy a brand new computer with 8GB that can't be upgraded, and should last at least 4 years after the purchase. If you see memory pressure and swap usage during normal basic usage, the computer doesn't have enough RAM, period.
What kind of answer were you expecting?
When you pay the upsize your meal at a fast food restaurant, the amount you pay is typically way more than the few cents it costs them to provide the extra fries and drink.
I imagine it’s the same logic here. You don’t look at how much it costs Apple to provide that extra ram and storage. You look at the value provided by the extra ram and storage. What it costs Apple is pretty much immaterial.
So if I were Apple, I guess that would be my response. The $200 represents the value of the extra utility they believe it adds for the end user. What it costs them is irrelevant and ultimately a red herring.
True. But you ain’t gonna find many if any 4070 and up gpus on cheap machines with low power cpus in windows world either.
I would say you are right, but these argument are more appropriate for marginal discussions.
There is quite a bit of transparency with respect to pricing in the RAM market; thus charging 10 times more, as some here have asserted, does need some justification by Apple. Customer sentiment would turn very negative if they would say: it’s because we can get away with it.
My guess, from a business perspective, is that they’re giving themselves some gas in the tank, so to speak, in case a competitor does emerge, and only then would they hit the pedal to the metal, so to speak. That’s my guess anyway.
If 8GB is the same price as 16GB and it's not hurting you then why would you be against 16GB being the default?
I don't disagree with the points made, but I do think they deserve more nuance.
The way I see it, Apple is a little different from the rest of the competition in that they are able to integrate their hardware, processors, software and services together. The implication is that macOS is presumably optimised to run better on the M1 (and later) chips. In a sense, macOS runs as smoothly on a laptop with 8gb ram compared to a windows laptop with 16gb ram, and Apple uses this optimisation to improve their hardware margins by cutting down on specs instead of passing on the cost savings to the consumer, because they know that at the end of the day, it's the experience that matters to the end user, not so much raw paper specs.
Or maybe the cost savings has manifested itself in the form of the entry level laptops with 8gb ram, if we choose to see the 16gb ram / 512gb storage options as the "true" Macbook offering. I suppose this argument is a little specious, but perhaps that's another way of viewing things? Ignore the base model, and consider only the cost of the upgraded model that you do want, and don't think too much about what it could have cost if you chose to skimp on ram and storage.
A lot of business decisions are made from a profit-maximising point of view. I get it doesn't always make for politically-correct answers, but then again, you don't run a successful business by giving customers everything they want. That's a surefire recipe for disaster, because users are always going to want more for less (money), and I think Apple has so far managed to avoid the commoditisation trap of the rest of the industry by having its own unique OS, software and services, which in turn allows Apple to differentiate itself from everyone else.
So yeah, to put it bluntly, it's probably because Apple (and maybe only Apple) can get away with it, but as I said at the start, the point deserves more nuance.
Yikes
www.macworld.com
Apple's MacBook Pro memory problem is worse than ever
Apple still sells expensive "Pro" computers with just 8GB of RAM and charges a fortune for more.
www.macworld.com
Given Apple’s past actions, they’d jack up the base price by $200, so that M3 16/512 would cost $1799 instead of $1599 and they’d simply drop the 8GB version. They did that for the iPhone 15 Pro Max and they probably did it for the base M3 MacBook Pro anyway when they upped the base version to 512GB from the M2 13” MBP’s 256GB base. If they had kept 256GB as the base for the 14” M3 MBP, they likely would have charged $1399. They tossed in the chassis and all the goodies you get from a higher MBP (MagSafe, ports, screen, speakers) just to assuage criticism for the price hike, and yes it was a price hike since that model replaces the 13” MBP. They called it a lower base price from the M2 Pro’s $1999 price, but that’s what marketing does.
That they will just bake a price hike into the base price is why I oppose changing the base configuration to 16GB because Apple would make it more expensive for the people who don’t need 16GB. Apple is not going to just toss it in for free. If Apple were to miraculously make the next model 16GB base without raising the price, I’d be all for it. Nobody opposes the concept of more memory, but we don’t want anyone to pay for what they don’t need. But until their market research tells them that people don’t want 8GB anymore as their base, they’re going to continue offering the same amount. Loud voices on tech chat forums aren’t going to change their mind. Only supply and demand will dictate that. The market speaks. Most people are just fine with 8GB.
First AAPL robs you then they get their PR dept to gaslight us with bogus "8GB on Macs is the same as 16GB on PCs". You can fool some of the people some of the time.Yikes
Apple's MacBook Pro memory problem is worse than ever
Apple still sells expensive "Pro" computers with just 8GB of RAM and charges a fortune for more.