Apple defends 8gb in laptop

[Homy]

It's been said many times, it's not as if Apple is the only one selling laptops with 8/256 GB. They sell MBA M2/M3 for $999-1099. Here are some Dell laptops with 8/256 GB for $1040-1599.

Dell Precision 3490 Workstation | Dell United States

Shop the Dell Precision 3490 14" Workstation with Intel core ultra processors and NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada graphics. View on Dell.com.

www.dell.com

Precision 3480 Mobile Workstation | Dell USA

Shop the Dell Precision Mobile Workstation (3480) featuring Precision optimizer & Efficient Intel Core 15W U processor, or see all Precision Workstations at Dell.com.

www.dell.com

Dell Latitude 5440 Laptop with 13th Gen IntelÂ®ï¸ Coreâ¢ï¸ Processor | Dell USA

Shop the Dell Latitude 5440 Laptop with 13th Gen IntelÂ®ï¸ Coreâ¢ï¸ i3/i5/i7 processors in either U/P-series and available with Intel vPro®. View on Dell.com

www.dell.com

| Dell USA

www.dell.com

 

[za9ra22]

No. I believe they intentionally are putting less effort into everything else.

Think about the spread of great products 10 years ago. The 2013 MacPro was a limited product but it was amazing when it first came out. I bought one and loved it. I was worlds faster than any computer on the market at the time and had a crazy 6 thunderbolt ports.

The iMac was a leading business machine with lots of options and the variety of laptops were so great that even Windows people were getting them just to use Bootcamp.

Even in 2019 there were great machines. I’m wondering if the move to Apple Silicone is to blame.

How the world has changed… It seems like all Apple cares about now is iPhone and wearables. I wish they’d put more effort into the Mac.

What Apple cares about is the product it makes profit from, and with something like 50% of corporate revenue to its name, the iPhone is it. If they didn't focus attention on that, shareholders would dump the management in the blink of an eye. This is not an era where public companies operate solely by the personal choice of the senior management, the whim of a genius or even the wishes of the public and customers. They're driven by shareholders, largely investment houses funding pension funds and lining the pockets of their own investors.

(On edit, this is what happens when shareholders get unhappy with the management... https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...that-tim-cook-defrauded-shareholders.2422004/)

The iPhone sells everywhere, and unlike the Mac and software markets, it turns over every couple of years. It is a modern cash cow, and whether we like it or not (I don't much) Apple nurture this product more than anything else because of that.

Personally, I appreciate the historical qualities of past product ranges, but there was not much great about a lot of the systems Apple produced in the past 20 years. Reliability and performance problems, flaking and easily damaged casings, bad keyboards, displays with appalling coating faults, questionable design choices... but like much else, each person will have their own view of the good, the bad and the ugly.

As to wishing they put more into the Mac... what on earth has the M-series been? While some of its qualities are arguable it is actually revolutionary, simply because it is a big step in performance capability against power consumption, which is already swaying the entire marketplace. The arrival of the M1 has seen major enhancements in the performance of desktop and laptop Macs, without any great change in pricing structures from before, but with significant energy gains.

Considering the Mac is a minority market product these days, not the sole product of the company it once was, my own view is that it is progressing through AS generations really rather well. Considering that many commentators were saying that by 2020 there was a real possibility Apple may actually stop Mac production entirely and focus entirely on the iPhone instead, I think Apple have shown, and are showing, rather a lot of commitment to the platform.

 

[Saturn007]

… I do compare 8 and 16GB systems and there's no appreciable difference in the functionality of the system, primarily because I don't tend to run all these tasks at the same time, and individually (or even in groups which logically fit the work I'm doing) the 8GB systems run perfectly well. …

Zara, great posts! That oneshould be a sticky and any thread that focuses on 8GB vs. 16GB should simply direct people to it — or, to a list of the scores of threads already discussing this, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

I’m so sick of this debate. Maybe 8 GB is enough today for a select few. The point, however, is that any machine, in 2024, with 8GB of ram cannot be legitimately called “insanely great”.

MacPro, many, if not most, of us are sick of this debate. Maybe TOS should ban discussions of it for a year! 😁

But many of us are even more tired of sweeping proclamations that 8GB isn't enough!

Yet, instead of being upset, we're amused by the Projection Syndrome in which people's personal needs and workflows are projected onto the masses!

“8GB isn't enough for me, no way, no how, so it's clearly not enough for anybody else!”​

Grudgingly, when pressed, they'll acknowledge,

”Well, perhaps, there are a ‘select few‘ who can use 8GB somewhat (in some Fantasy Land I really know nothing about) — but that is only ‘enough for today’ and they'll soon be sorry, pity the fools!” 😁​

​

(Please accept this in the light-hearted, teasing way it's meant.)​

​

Rest assured, there are tens of millions users who are making great use of their 8GB Macs — for all sorts of activities and workflows — they are even (GASP!) being productive, running businesses, doing sophisticated analyses, handling large spreadsheets and datasets, managing Photos libraries of thousands of photos and videos, etc. All without a hitch. They're doing that now in 2024 and will do that for the next several years without issues.

The fixation on the memory gauge and the Activity Monitor and fretting over it getting, sometimes, into the yellow rather than focusing on any actual slow down in performance is telling.

As I've noted before, the situation is

Just like that old laughable sitcom —“Eight is Enough”. ​

​

That’s true for the overwhelming majority of Mac users.​

​

Many demanding workflows still work well even on 8GB 2013-2019 Macs. No slowdowns or sluggishness — responsive, wonderful computing experiences.

​

No doubt, 8GB on an M-series Apple silicon Mac would work even better!

8GB really is enough for most!

For more on this, see

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

The debate over whether 8GB of RAM is sufficient for a Mac has long been a topic of contention. The controversy goes back to at least 2012, when Apple launched the first MacBook Pro with Retina display, which started with 8GB of RAM. Apple still offers 8GB as the base configuration for its...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[0339327]

What Apple cares about is the product it makes profit from, and with something like 50% of corporate revenue to its name, the iPhone is it. If they didn't focus attention on that, shareholders would dump the management in the blink of an eye. This is not an era where public companies operate solely by the personal choice of the senior management, the whim of a genius or even the wishes of the public and customers. They're driven by shareholders, largely investment houses funding pension funds and lining the pockets of their own investors.

(On edit, this is what happens when shareholders get unhappy with the management... https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...that-tim-cook-defrauded-shareholders.2422004/)

The iPhone sells everywhere, and unlike the Mac and software markets, it turns over every couple of years. It is a modern cash cow, and whether we like it or not (I don't much) Apple nurture this product more than anything else because of that.

Personally, I appreciate the historical qualities of past product ranges, but there was not much great about a lot of the systems Apple produced in the past 20 years. Reliability and performance problems, flaking and easily damaged casings, bad keyboards, displays with appalling coating faults, questionable design choices... but like much else, each person will have their own view of the good, the bad and the ugly.

As to wishing they put more into the Mac... what on earth has the M-series been? While some of its qualities are arguable it is actually revolutionary, simply because it is a big step in performance capability against power consumption, which is already swaying the entire marketplace. The arrival of the M1 has seen major enhancements in the performance of desktop and laptop Macs, without any great change in pricing structures from before, but with significant energy gains.

Considering the Mac is a minority market product these days, not the sole product of the company it once was, my own view is that it is progressing through AS generations really rather well. Considering that many commentators were saying that by 2020 there was a real possibility Apple may actually stop Mac production entirely and focus entirely on the iPhone instead, I think Apple have shown, and are showing, rather a lot of commitment to the platform.

Mac sales down 30%+ year over year and Apple stock is volatile and stuck at 2021 pricing. I'm not the only one unhappy. Putting all your eggs in a single basket is bad business and Apple is large enough that they should be able to focus on all the product categories... as they did in the past.

Fact is that Apple is focusing more on short-term profits as opposed to building long-term product lines.

 

[boak]

If so then Apple will move less volume as outside of CONUS deals on Mac's are near non existent. Nor is the competition the mess some like to project here. Right now the Mac's saving grace is the runtime on battery...

Q-6

Revenue is a function of both price and volume. Apple will adjust accordingly to maximise the revenue.

 

[cyanite]

I just can't 🙄
Look I have only Safari open, I'm shopping, comparing stuff, nothing extraordinary, just one simple task and it goes nearly to 30GB swap and tabs need refreshing...

But notice how much of that is cache, and how little is wired. Memory usage does adapt to the available RAM.

 

[Contact_Feanor]

I’m so sick of this debate. Maybe 8 GB is enough today for a select few. The point, however, is that any machine, in 2024, with 8GB of ram cannot be legitimately called “insanely great”.

Further, I don’t believe it costs Apple more than $20 for the extra 8GB and the fact that this isn’t standard is just another upset with the current ecosystem.

I know Tim and Co don’t care now but as more and more people move way from Apple, they soon will. Betting the entire company on the future of a single product family, the iPhone, is damn risky. I wish Apple would return to making all their products, hardware and software, “insanely great”. Though Tim is, no doubt, an excellent CEO, and, no doubt, has altered Apple’s trajectory; therefore, I doubt, Apple will make a change under

Not just for a select few. For the vast majority. Think of all the people you meet throughout regular days. I have a 96GB RAM 4TB SSD MBP myself; but literally nobody else in my family or work needs more than 8GB for what they do with their macs. I bought my husband an 8GB RAM 256GB SSD MacBook Air and he's never been happier with a laptop. Most people use their machines for browsing, listening to music and watching photos, some text manipulation in word/pages or bookkeeping in excel/numbers and that's it. My husband will use the occasional photoshop for an ad for his business, but even for that the 8GB machine is perfectly capable.
Do I get it that people on this forum want more? of course. But let's not pretend that for the vast, vast majority of people and businesses, 8GB of Ram is perfectly capable.

 

[0339327]

Not just for a select few. For the vast majority. Think of all the people you meet throughout regular days. I have a 96GB RAM 4TB SSD MBP myself; but literally nobody else in my family or work needs more than 8GB for what they do with their macs. I bought my husband an 8GB RAM 256GB SSD MacBook Air and he's never been happier with a laptop. Most people use their machines for browsing, listening to music and watching photos, some text manipulation in word/pages or bookkeeping in excel/numbers and that's it. My husband will use the occasional photoshop for an ad for his business, but even for that the 8GB machine is perfectly capable.
Do I get it that people on this forum want more? of course. But let's not pretend that for the vast, vast majority of people and businesses, 8GB of Ram is perfectly capable.

When you're spending $1K+ on a machine, it should be far snappier. Why is my kids $400 refurbished Dell (i7 10th Gen) faster than my $1200 M1 iMac for typical web browsing and homework? I agree that the M1 is much faster for processor intensive tasks, but for RAM, like multiple web pages and the time to open Microsoft Word, the PC has it beat.

So the Apple can save $20 / machine. Really?

 

[Queen6]

Revenue is a function of both price and volume. Apple will adjust accordingly to maximise the revenue.

Nothing changes as many simply view Mac's as being over priced. Apple wants to move more volume it knows what needs to happen and by all the sales coming up in CONUS is just a matter of time. That or loose market share...

The base models are more than adequate for many, if not most. They just need to be priced more attractively and the upgrades priced sensibly.

Q-6

 

[boak]

Nothing changes as many simply view Mac's as being over priced. Apple wants to move more volume it knows what needs to happen and by all the sales coming up in CONUS is just a matter of time. That or loose market share...

The base models are more than adequate for many, if not most. They just need to be priced more attractively and the upgrades priced sensibly.

Q-6

Apple does not want to move more volume. Apple wants to gain more revenue.

By your argument, Apple should just sell at 1 cent to move huge volumes.

 

[za9ra22]

Fact is ...

Fact is, Apple are doing what they are expected to do, for the reasons I have explained. You may not like it (and in a lot of ways I don't either), but this is how a business works.

And since you can't really know with any certainty, you really can't say what they're doing is at the expense of building long term product lines. The fact that you don't recognize the great stride in systems they made with the M-series Macs suggests you're perhaps not looking at this right.

When you're spending $1K+ on a machine, it should be far snappier.

I spent $1299 on mine, and it is notably faster than any other system I have. You may only reasonably speak for your own perception, which appears not to be universal.

...They just need to be priced more attractively and the upgrades priced sensibly.

I think the pricing is high(ish) but acceptable. I agree totally that the upgrades should be priced more sensibly, even as that would likely force a thinning of the product range a little - which I would like to see too.

 

[Queen6]

Apple does not want to move more volume. Apple wants to gain more revenue.

By your argument, Apple should just sell at 1 cent to move huge volumes.

If Mac's dont sell there is no revenue plain and simple...

Q-6

 

[za9ra22]

If Mac's dont sell there is no revenue plain and simple...

Q-6

I guess we'll get some idea fairly soon if Macs are selling - in the context of overall computer sales, that will be interesting.

 

[Shanghaichica]

8GB is enough for me. Even 4GB would be enough for me because I only do basic things like web browsing and streaming.

 

[boak]

If Mac's dont sell there is no revenue plain and simple...

Q-6

Nope. Products are typically priced at the price point where revenue is maximised, which is loosely the amount a significant proportion of consumers are willing and able to pay.

 

[boak]

Apple couldn't care less about sales volume, they care about revenue. Have you seen the pie charts for iPhones regarding market share based on volume vs. revenue?

 

[Sippincider]

In an interview with IT Home, Mac marketing executive Evan Buyze spoke in favor of Macs equipped with 8GB of RAM.

Emphasis mine. What does engineering have to say?

We could overlook 8gb today if Apple was an entry-level brand selling value PCs. But it's unforgivable when you're nosebleed premium. Like one's choice of premiere automaker equipping 14" bias tires as base equipment with no way to upgrade: yes it'll still go down the road but the brand is cheapening themselves, esp. when sales are required to move stock.

 

[Queen6]

Nope. Products are typically priced at the price point where revenue is maximised, which is loosely the maximum amount a significant proportion of consumers are willing and able to pay.

Your just going round in circles with no reference to the point of the thread.

Q-6

 

[Xiao_Xi]

it's not as if Apple is the only one selling laptops with 8/256 GB. They sell MBA M2/M3 for $999-1099. Here are some Dell laptops with 8/256 GB for $1040-1599.

I wish the tech press would start establishing 16/512 GB laptops as the baseline for high-end laptops and describe the other options as upgrades or downgrades. The tech press shouldn't help companies play marketing tricks on potential users.

 

[Corefile]

Top comment in original article is accurate.

"We're complaining about 8+256, but there's nothing wrong with that SKU. It's right for certain customers. We are all complaining 8+256 is too expensive."

When the price of 8GB and the price of 16GB are the same then 8GB shouldn't even be a consideration. The issue is that you shouldn't neuter specs when not needed. That's Tim Apple's first mistake. The second mistake is the horse manure of trying to claim 8GB of memory in a Mac is the same as 16GB in a PC. Tim Apple is now insulting our intelligence and this whole 8GB neutered base model is a total PR disaster.

 

[0339327]

Fact is, Apple are doing what they are expected to do, for the reasons I have explained. You may not like it (and in a lot of ways I don't either), but this is how a business works.

And since you can't really know with any certainty, you really can't say what they're doing is at the expense of building long term product lines. The fact that you don't recognize the great stride in systems they made with the M-series Macs suggests you're perhaps not looking at this right.

I spent $1299 on mine, and it is notably faster than any other system I have. You may only reasonably speak for your own perception, which appears not to be universal.

I think the pricing is high(ish) but acceptable. I agree totally that the upgrades should be priced more sensibly, even as that would likely force a thinning of the product range a little - which I would like to see too.

Apple stock is up 3.8% in two years, less than even the S&P. If we compare that to the pre-COVID 2018 to 2020... well, you can clearly see how the market changed their opinion of the, no longer, world's most valuable company.

Yes, there was a large jump during COVID, but that was less due to Apple's innovation and more to do with the sales jump of the entire industry during the move towards the work from home environment.

 

[Bug-Creator]

Listening to music and surfing the net with a few browsers profiles open and multiple tabs, iMessage, OUtlook Client.

And bang your far above what the typical base spec MBA user would do.

They would just use Safari with a few tabs and Apple's mail saving them several GB of RAM usage.

 

[bousozoku]

I think the price they ask for the base Airs are fine. Maybe the 15" is pushing it at $1299, but it's also pretty easy to find it for less (In the US, you can save $100 buying from the Education store, no matter who you are), but I will agree that asking $1599 for the base MacBook Pro is horrendous.

For $100 less, you can get a 13" Air with the same chip and storage, with 16GB of RAM, or for $100 more get the 15" in the same config. Performance will be nearly identical (the fan makes almost no difference), and while 120Hz is nice, you know what's nicer? A more capable computer that will last longer.

I don't think we're at the point where 8GB is the new 4GB (something useless for everything but the most basic of tasks), but I think we'll be there by the end of the decade, so it's time to start thinking about that for long term purchases.

Since the Intel era, I thought that the price for a base MacBook Pro was insane. Anything "Pro" shouldn't be relying on Intel's integrated graphics. At around US$2399 for the MacBook Pro with discrete graphics hardware made more sense than US$1599, unless you were in sales and didn't need to create more than documents.

Now, the MacBook Air is so powerful that a salesperson, without a huge ego, could carry it and do their work just fine.

 

[Chuckeee]

Further, I don’t believe it costs Apple more than $20 for the extra 8GB and the fact that this isn’t standard is just another upset with the current ecosystem.

So the Apple can save $20 / machine. Really?

When the price of 8GB and the price of 16GB are the same then 8GB shouldn't even be a consideration

It is not about the BOM (cost of materials), it is about Apple being able to achieve significant profits from customers who want more than 8GB and will pay an outrageous fee for memory upgrades. And that the general customer pool not complaining and still buying 8GB machines.

And people are still buying.

As far as sales being down. Sales are down across the entire PC market. What really counts is market share, and in that respect Apple computer sale are steady.

 

[Contact_Feanor]

When you're spending $1K+ on a machine, it should be far snappier. Why is my kids $400 refurbished Dell (i7 10th Gen) faster than my $1200 M1 iMac for typical web browsing and homework? I agree that the M1 is much faster for processor intensive tasks, but for RAM, like multiple web pages and the time to open Microsoft Word, the PC has it beat.

So the Apple can save $20 / machine. Really?

The time to open Microsoft Word is absolutely shorter on an M1 than it is on any refurbished dell. (My reference is a recent 64GB i9 machine and a surface pro, so I seriously doubt your refurbished dell with an i7 is somehow a miracle machine.)