Apple Likely Planning to Skip M3 Mac Mini for M4 Refresh in Late 2024

[nawnp]

people who say "oh Apple can just add 8GB for additional BOM $20 cost and therefore should not charge the user more than $26 have no idea how a product is priced.

things are factored in:
- more chips or more complex chips = more energy required = more heat = more likely a component failure = more money is set aside for warranty reserves ESPECIALLY when it sits next to the GPU
- higher capacities allow for more intense workloads which again increases warranty reserves
- memory sitting as part of the SoC chip means lower yields when more complex/higher capacity memory

and so on.

No one is actually asking for a ram upgrade for $26, $50 would be best but I still don't think Apple would lower it below $100.

The whole point is Apple has switched to an SOC design with their silicon. That means the ram and storage are non upgradable from the original design, but money is saved at the manufacturing point, so upgrades would be rather intuitive and much cheaper than they were in the Intel era.
Apple really hasn't changed anything since then, and we've had another 5 years of technological improvements, they prefer to rip off their consumer base because it has been profitable.

 

[truthsteve]

No one is actually asking for a ram upgrade for $26,

@chucker23n1 is basically asking for that. he says $20 to upgrade them. 30% margins means $26.

 

[chucker23n1]

@chucker23n1 is basically asking for that.

At no point did I ask for Apple to take zero margins for RAM upgrades. In fact, I even said in this very thread that their upgrade pricing is in line with the competition.

 

[Motorola68000]

uh hard disagree. Apple can't just increase to 16GB and eat the costs.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand corporate purchasing and production costs. Being unified memory, the cost is not so much in the RAM but in the incorporation, but that also provides a potential significant cost saving, as if you then delete a production run of 8Gb, it costs no more to INCORPORATE 16Gb as unified memory as it does 8Gb, with the emphasis on incorporate, as yes 16Gb RAM costs more than 8Gb but the cost of the ram is really negliglble, likely no more than $20 to apple. But for that extra cost, they then lose the cost of a production run of the 8Gb unified run, which saves a very significant amount of money, plus by doing that they increase the 16Gb run, where 16Gb is not a new production set up, but already exists, so by increasing that run significantly you reduce unit costs, i.e. you buy 1 and it might be $100, you buy 10 and the unit costs drop, you buy thousands and the unit costs drop dramatically.

Its likely if they dropped the 8Gb even if they charged an extra $20, they would still be gaining more revenue by virtue of no need to have two production runs, of 8Gb and 16Gb and the increased size of the 16Gb run.

 

[Motorola68000]

There are some arguments worth having, this is not one of them. I’ll continue to spec my computer appropriately and help the people around me that ask for advice do the same.

Certainly and with the greatest respect, when you got the argument wrong about the RAM in the first place. If you don't understand unified memory and you clearly didn't, then I'd be mindful of that if asked for advice.

 

[b.la]

Certainly and with the greatest respect, when you got the argument wrong about the RAM in the first place. If you don't understand unified memory and you clearly didn't, then I'd be mindful of that if asked for advice.

You’re talking to someone who worked for Apple for over 8 years and was still employed there when the M series chips were being released. I’ve worked with some of the biggest companies in the world to support their deployment of hundreds and thousands of Apple products. Unified memory is not just a ram module soldered to a chip, it is a different architecture which allows the CPU/GPU access to the memory, but also allows the system to use more ram during occasional spikes if needed. That’s without taking into consideration the RAM optimisation build into the OS. I should rephrase this, some people aren’t worth arguing with, respectfully.

 

[truthsteve]

At no point did I ask for Apple to take zero margins for RAM upgrades.

Who said zero margins? I literally explained the supposed + erroneous 30% margins calculation in the sentence after that you conveniently omitted.

 

[truthsteve]

Then I'm afraid you don't understand corporate purchasing and production costs. Being unified memory, the cost is not so much in the RAM but in the incorporation, but that also provides a potential significant cost saving

stop there. you're flat out wrong. unified memory requires custom memory controllers because it's not some memory you access over standard bus. these memory controllers need to map out the memory and provide low latency access for all other dies on the SoC (GPU/Neural Engine/CPU). not only that, Apple needs to design cooling solutions to accommodate the hot memory sitting next to the hot CPU/GPU/NE. And if the memory chip is bad, the yields decrease, making the overall production much more expensive as opposed to simply swapping out the memory.

literally more expensive for incorporation. sorry you're completely misunderstanding the engineering side and production cost of this.

 

[Motorola68000]

You’re talking to someone who worked for Apple for over 8 years and was still employed there when the M series chips were being released. I’ve worked with some of the biggest companies in the world to support their deployment of hundreds and thousands of Apple products. Unified memory is not just a ram module soldered to a chip, it is a different architecture which allows the CPU/GPU access to the memory, but also allows the system to use more ram during occasional spikes if needed. That’s without taking into consideration the RAM optimisation build into the OS. I should rephrase this, some people aren’t worth arguing with, respectfully.

8 years, but you didn't understand what unified memory was, you got it attributing it to the RAM itself rather than its configuration with the SoC, ....try at least 35 years in systems development and we'll be on par.

 

[Motorola68000]

stop there. you're flat out wrong. unified memory requires custom memory controllers because it's not some memory you access over standard bus. these memory controllers need to map out the memory and provide low latency access for all other dies on the SoC (GPU/Neural Engine/CPU). not only that, Apple needs to design cooling solutions to accommodate the hot memory sitting next to the hot CPU/GPU/NE. And if the memory chip is bad, the yields decrease, making the overall production much more expensive as opposed to simply swapping out the memory.

literally more expensive for incorporation. sorry you're completely misunderstanding the engineering side and production cost of this.

Steve. You've not read the posts as I describe unified memory is not so much about the RAM but about its configuration with the SoC. But it does not alter that ceasing a production run and increasing another by merging the production numbers into the second run SAVES MONEY. I've procured and helped design systems for over 35 years and still am, so I know first hand about procurement, and Apple know that cutting out the 8Gb run and instead increasing the 16Gb would be a large cost saving on the actual production, less the cost of the difference between 8Gb and 16Gb ram, which is likely to be negligible and if allied to the production savings, likely self financing. The only thing it doesn't do is guarantee Apple massive upgrade costs from 8Gb to 16Gb, but where its likely they will be forced to upgrade that shortly, because even their unwise comments about 8Gb equivalence to 16Gb was provably wrong, and even Apple have rolled back from that in their description of what 8Gb machines can do, i.e. basic tasks.

Likewise you mention the engineering, but neglect to mention that the engineering is already geared up or the 16Gb configuration, which rather destroys your argument in this instance. Now if Apple was setting up a brand new configuration your point may have some merit, but it isn't. That's one reason I would not be surprised if any jump is from 8Gb to 16Gb.

We hear today about Apple on device LLM's, and presumably they will have a RAM requirement, and as software evolves RAM will be necessary and the last thing someone wants is an 8Gb device that either has its performance curtailed by massive swapping, or premature obsolescence.

Thankfully I'm off for a few days, so good wishes to all and whilst we may all disagree about aspects of Apple, we mustn't lose sight its just a company, and sadly in my 72nd year I've come to realise at a cost, that often the things that seemed so massively important were like pinpricks on a planet, when something tragic occurs.

 

[b.la]

Steve. You've not read the posts as I describe unified memory is not so much about the RAM but about its configuration with the SoC. But it does not alter that ceasing a production run and increasing another by merging the production numbers into the second run SAVES MONEY. I've procured and helped design systems for over 35 years and still am, so I know first hand about procurement, and Apple know that cutting out the 8Gb run and instead increasing the 16Gb would be a large cost saving on the actual production, less the cost of the difference between 8Gb and 16Gb ram, which is likely to be negligible and if allied to the production savings, likely self financing. The only thing it doesn't do is guarantee Apple massive upgrade costs from 8Gb to 16Gb, but where its likely they will be forced to upgrade that shortly, because even their unwise comments about 8Gb equivalence to 16Gb was provably wrong, and even Apple have rolled back from that in their description of what 8Gb machines can do, i.e. basic tasks.

Likewise you mention the engineering, but neglect to mention that the engineering is already geared up or the 16Gb configuration, which rather destroys your argument in this instance. Now if Apple was setting up a brand new configuration your point may have some merit, but it isn't. That's one reason I would not be surprised if any jump is from 8Gb to 16Gb.

We hear today about Apple on device LLM's, and presumably they will have a RAM requirement, and as software evolves RAM will be necessary and the last thing someone wants is an 8Gb device that either has its performance curtailed by massive swapping, or premature obsolescence.

Thankfully I'm off for a few days, so good wishes to all and whilst we may all disagree about aspects of Apple, we mustn't lose sight its just a company, and sadly in my 72nd year I've come to realise at a cost, that often the things that seemed so massively important were like pinpricks on a planet, when something tragic occurs.

You do know that the unified memory is the RAM right?

Also, the LLM will run in the Neural Engine.

🙄

 

[truthsteve]

But it does not alter that ceasing a production run and increasing another by merging the production numbers into the second run SAVES MONEY.

cutting 4 options down to 3 BTO options saves money? sure, that's obvious and a given.

standard ram vs unified ram? much more expensive. pricing strategy factors all tiers (in other words, margins are not the same for 8GB vs 16GB). this is a simple fact. so pointing that Apple can eat costs by upping to 16GB as base is wrong considering this component itself is expensive.

please don't even try to say that "Apple can save and/or make more money by eliminating 8GB option". that's ridiculously false. Tim Cook and Jeff Williams are the king of supply chain management and they know what they're doing.

 

[chucker23n1]

If “standard RAM” is an SO-DIMM, yes, “unified RAM” is pricier. But Apple was on LPDDR for most MacBooks (except the high-end 16-inch Pro) for years before the move to ARM, and some other laptop vendors use LPDDR as well, so you might as well fall that “standard” now. It doesn’t really related to their Unified Memory branding.

 

[Motorola68000]

You do know that the unified memory is the RAM right?

Also, the LLM will run in the Neural Engine.

🙄

No it’s not. I’m really shocked how some can post on belief alone and are so technically lacking. It is not RAM that is the defining cost base it is UNIFYING the RAM. Please no more posts from those who don’t understand this. The RAM is nothing special and excuse the pun ‘cheap as chips’

 

[Motorola68000]

cutting 4 options down to 3 BTO options saves money? sure, that's obvious and a given.

standard ram vs unified ram? much more expensive. pricing strategy factors all tiers (in other words, margins are not the same for 8GB vs 16GB). this is a simple fact. so pointing that Apple can eat costs by upping to 16GB as base is wrong considering this component itself is expensive.

please don't even try to say that "Apple can save and/or make more money by eliminating 8GB option". that's ridiculously false. Tim Cook and Jeff Williams are the king of supply chain management and they know what they're doing.

Another poster trying to make a technically illiterate argument. RAM is RAM and is as ‘cheap as chips’ it is Unifying that RAM that is more expensive by virtue of it interaction to the SoC. That has to happen on all unified RAM so in an existing 16Gb run that is set up for 16Gb unified RAM that is a bigger run the unit cost decreases.

Likewise dropping a run where hypothetically the run was 100,000 means the cost of that is saved and where then if the 100,000 is added to the 16Gb run the unit cost is reduced by scale. I’m not surmising, I’ve done procurement before many posters were born and for a very large competitor of Apple before I set up my own company 25 years ago.

There is nothing really special about the RAM, which is currently ‘cheap as chips’ it is the implementation of that RAM in juxtaposition to the SoC and soldered in place.

It is fake news for some to keep peddling the RAM in unified RAM is somehow very special and expensive.

Ask Tim Cook or any of the high execs at Apple!

A similar false comment was originally put forward about the SSD’s upgrade costs but where we had an M1 Mac mini with 256 SSD fail (a super ratio compared to how many we source) but where we decided to put a much larger capacity SSD in it and documented here ages ago.

We couldn’t and wouldn’t put the device back in the field as it of course invalidated Apple warranty and we wanted to judge whether it would continue to be error free which it has proved to be.

So many are tackling the 8Gb situation incorrectly imo. The argument about upgrade price is less valid than the argument of having a base 16Gb to start with. It’s less valid if Apple keep the 8Gb base as it still keeps the 8Gb production going for no good reason and therefore increasing the 16Gb run be an undetermined amount whereas removing the 8Gb run and costs asssociated with it saves money and putting that run to the 16Gb gives a much more accurate idea of the increased 16Gb production run where by doing that unit costs are cut further.

Having user configured RAM then from 16Gb upwards will always cost more than the RAM itself because of the nature of unifying RAM and where then it’s likely the upgrades from 16Gb upwards are again not easily predetermined and unlikely to give a greater unit cost saving by virtue of the large size of the production run.

This argument should also not result in vilification of Tim Cook as no doubt many at Apple are involved in decision making and whilst I criticise certain aspects of his reign Apple has been very successful financially.

Times are changing as is the complexity of software and that is unlikely to survive in an 8Gb environment without degradation to performance and Apple know this.

AI is but one addition but look back at the colossal change in computing and the technical improvements. I remember Steve talking about rendering and everyone thought he was nuts and I had doubts as the only real rendering and image manipulation was via dedicated Quantel equipment. Macrenderman was born which ironically evolved to Pixar Macrendernan which evolved to PIXAR

 

[truthsteve]

it is Unifying that RAM that is more expensive

that would be unified memory yes. you're just pointing out what I said, so thanks?

custom memory controllers, R&D on a cooling solution given the form factor and given memory is sitting next to GPU, lower yields = higher costs, and etc...mean unified memory is more expensive. pc manufacturers don't need to worry about any of this.

I don't really need the rest of the lecture considering it sounds like you misunderstood what I said.

 

[truthsteve]

If “standard RAM” is an SO-DIMM, yes, “unified RAM” is pricier.

now you're understanding what I've been saying all along

 

[chucker23n1]

now you're understanding what I've been saying all along

Which, again, makes absolutely no sense in the context of changing the amount of RAM.

 

[truthsteve]

Which, again, makes absolutely no sense in the context of changing the amount of RAM.

i already explained how that is terribly wrong. reread about heat and yields

pretty interesting how you keep ignoring those points. I'm not going to repeat my self so I'm going to move on from this.

 

[Motorola68000]

that would be unified memory yes. you're just pointing out what I said, so thanks?

custom memory controllers, R&D on a cooling solution given the form factor and given memory is sitting next to GPU, lower yields = higher costs, and etc...mean unified memory is more expensive. pc manufacturers don't need to worry about any of this.

I don't really need the rest of the lecture considering it sounds like you misunderstood what I said.

There is a world of difference in your terminology as I make it clear that the cost is in UNIFYING that memory, so there is no excuse for the impression many give that UNIFIED MEMORY is in some way some wonderful chip that is ultra expensive as its simply not true.

So perhaps you do need the lecture after all as there is none so blind as them who will not see and perhaps if you had read it all you may have learned something. Is NOT reading it, analogous to book burning. (tic)

 

[chucker23n1]

i already explained how that is terribly wrong. reread about heat and yields

pretty interesting how you keep ignoring those points. I'm not going to repeat my self so I'm going to move on from this.

Have you read up yet on what a SoC is? It might help you in future debates.

 

[truthsteve]

I make it clear that the cost is in UNIFYING that memory

I made it clear that unified memory includes the overhead of implementing said feature. You were simply mistaken and felt the need to type out something that was completely unnecessary.

Since you now understand my point, there's nothing more to talk about it. Moving on.

 

[Motorola68000]

I made it clear that unified memory includes the overhead of implementing said feature. You were simply mistaken and felt the need to type out something that was completely unnecessary.

Since you now understand my point, there's nothing more to talk about it. Moving on.

No Steve you just like to be pedantic, when my original post was quite clear. If the 8Gb configuration is binned, then the process of unification is as it was for that configuration, so there is no additional cost. The 16Gb production line is there, with the only difference being that in the 8Gb there was still the cost of unifying, so switching the base to 16Gb the increase run, which reduces unit costs is not having an extra unification process, because that would have happened on the 8Gb run.

 

[ggoldstein66]

Mini m4, Mini m4 where are you? Do you think I could bait the above guys into making 3 or 4 days worth of some irrelevant arguments.