Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Boil said:
Dude, you are wrong...

Johny misspoke,
Click to expand...
LOL, you're really saying Johny, the person who LEAD the design of the M chip, is wrong, that Apple marketing didn't catch it during a prerecorded scene with a script that likely ran through the lawyers many times, and you're somehow right? you can't be serious.
alright I'm moving on. this is ridiculous.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Shukuun and Boil
chucker23n1 said:
"Unified Memory" does not, however, mean that the RAM chips are anything special. They're LPDDR5X; quite a few laptops use that now.
Click to expand...
I've never said the *chips* themselves are special.

The point is that implementing UMA is more expensive. therefore Apple cannot simply offer the same RAM tiers as PC manufacturers.
 
truthsteve said:
LOL, you're really saying Johny, the person who LEAD the design of the M chip, is wrong, that Apple marketing didn't catch it during a prerecorded scene with a script that likely ran through the lawyers many times, and you're somehow right? you can't be serious.
alright I'm moving on. this is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No. Srouji is oversimplifying in that quote, and explaining in more detail and more accurately literally a few seconds later.
 
chucker23n1 said:
The BTO option buys you different chips. That’s all it does.
Click to expand...
even if # of chips is the same, a higher capacity chip increases energy consumption = more heat.

more complex the chips = higher chances of faulty chips = less yield for the SoC = higher ram cost
 
b.la said:
I mean, if someone has demanding video or coding work, they can get more power all the way up to a Mac Studio/Pro so I don’t really understand how they’d benefit when the power is already there?
Click to expand...
More power means faster task completion and smoother, more efficient workflow. For people who do a lot of demanding tasks, seemingly trivial benefits like completing something in 30 seconds instead of a minute adds up.

And on the home front, faster performance tends to offer a 'snappier' user experience which is quite welcome. Picture 2 Macs with the same capabilities but one key difference; when you click to open any app. on one it takes 4 seconds, and on the other, the app. pops open instantly. The 2nd Mac will be more pleasant to use and preferred.
b.la said:
Again, I’d ask what do you use your computer for today that you couldn’t use an older Mac with TB2 and wifi5 ?
Click to expand...
Today, faster workflow as described above. But many people don't just buy for today; that added power might offer snappier performance that's meaningfully more pleasant several years down the road.

As for TB2, that even affects me. I held off on buying an iMac till 2017 because I wanted TB3 and USB-C connectors. For 6 years, that had little benefit - I had a USB-C SD card reader that was pretty fast, big deal. But then my Fusion Drive went out, and a USB-C external SSD drive was on sale for a great price, and shockingly my user experience is as-good-or-better than I had with the internal Fusion Drive. Holding out for USB-C paid off nicely for me; didn't even need Thunderbolt (which would've cost more).

Lots of people still on Wifi 5, I think, but at the rate 'Internet of Things' households are proliferating gadgets on wifi, that's not the way to go. Add up all the different devices that access your wifi. Now consider apartment dwellers may have neighbors' devices creating interference. Then 3 different people in the house want to watch 4K video streams simultaneously on different devices.

The latest and greatest isn't the right move for everybody, but it pays off for some people.
 
Motorola68000 said:
You certainly don't need to explain unified memory to me, although a basic explanation is that technically the RAM is not different to normal RAM its how it is situated and its proximity and its interaction with GPU/CPU and where unified RAM is soldered onto the SoC, but where ironically I never raised that, so quite why you are inserting an answer to a question I never raised or using it as an argument seems rather strange as if anything it makes getting 8Gb even more tenuous when it can't be upgraded after purchase.

"If you are buying a machine to run an application that needs 16GB" well Apple now have backtracked and confirmed 8Gb is suitable for basic tasks, and where I doubt many people even check what software RAM requirements are let alone that these things change quite rapidly with evolving software and multitasking, which makes your argument very implausible.

If you don't consider any future proofing, then in my opinion its not the way to ensure longevity of your devices. How many upgrades to Mac OS do we get? Frequent?

How many upgrades of existing software used even in basic tasks, where they WILL evolve and require more RAM?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
b.la said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing against that.

It’s only “is 8 still a good base?” that’s being debated.
 
chucker23n1 said:
Nobody is arguing against that.

It’s only “is 8 still a good base?” that’s being debated.
Click to expand...
And that is a good debate. I think people overestimate what most people use their computers for. I’m happy to be called out as wrong on this in the future but I know people that were using the M1 Mac with 8gb of ram for some good sized logic projects and some impressive video work. For the average user, using the internet, photos and some occasional documents, 8GB UM is and will be more than enough for what that person uses their machine for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
To amuse Siracusa, I made the graph he hinted at this week:

mstdn.social

DavidSchaub (@dschaub@mstdn.social)

Attached: 1 image @atpfm@mastodon.social @siracusa@mastodon.social Here you go. This isn't as interesting a graph, but the MacBook Air base SKU RAM line really helps give context.
mstdn.social mstdn.social

Showing how the phones are catching up to the base SKU Macs,

453dfaa3c44b396e.png
 
So if the Apple Store continues the new trend of offer a 16GB configuration (as off the shelf, not just BTO) for MBA. Then isn’t the whole 8GB argument about that it costs to much?
 
Chuckeee said:
So if the Apple Store continues the new trend of offer a 16GB configuration (as off the shelf, not just BTO) for MBA. Then isn’t the whole 8GB argument about that it costs to much?
Click to expand...
My argument has always been that $200 extra on top of the base SKU is too much for 8GB of RAM.

Which could just mean that a $1599 laptop with 8GB is ridiculous, or that charging $200 for for 8GB more is ridiculous... Take your pick?
 
DavidSchaub said:
My argument has always been that $200 extra on top of the base SKU is too much for 8GB of RAM.

Which could just mean that a $1599 laptop with 8GB is ridiculous, or that charging $200 for for 8GB more is ridiculous... Take your pick?
Click to expand...
Make it $400 since you probably won’t be satisfied with a 256 SSD either .So yes if you want that type of laptop, it’s $2K. That’s the price, if you need it or want it bad enough just open your wallet. If not save your money and come back next year, just like watches, cars, purses or even shoes. Gasoline is too expensive too.
 
Chuckeee said:
Make it $400 since you probably won’t be satisfied with a 256 SSD either .So yes if you want that type of laptop, it’s $2K. That’s the price, if you need it or want it bad enough just open your wallet. If not save your money and come back next year, just like watches, cars, purses or even shoes. Gasoline is too expensive too.
Click to expand...

I don't see what's wrong with complaining.

It is not a matter of "if" the RAM and SSD get increases... just "when".

The reality is that Apple will only change their behaviour if it starts costing them sales (either due to people delaying purchases or changing platforms). So reviewers need to call them out for it more, people on here can call them out for it more. Eventually sales will slow and eventually Apple will offer more reasonable prices/base SKUs.

Some people just need a laptop "now", and that's OK too.

This is the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee and drrich2
bearcatrp said:
Well, the mini got shafted with skipping the M3. Fine. No problem. But the mini should be 1st of the desktops to get the M4. Let’s hope for at least 64 GB maximum ram.
Click to expand...
Will come with 8/256, like it or no, even if get released in 2025.
 
DavidSchaub said:
I don't see what's wrong with complaining.

It is not a matter of "if" the RAM and SSD get increases... just "when".

The reality is that Apple will only change their behaviour if it starts costing them sales (either due to people delaying purchases or changing platforms). So reviewers need to call them out for it more, people on here can call them out for it more. Eventually sales will slow and eventually Apple will offer more reasonable prices/base SKUs.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong complaining about costs. It just joins a long list of things that have an outrageous cost that should people should complain about. But it is not the top of my list (that dubious honor [in the US] goes to college tuition, medical bills and housing costs in my opinion).
 
Chuckeee said:
Nothing wrong complaining about costs. It just joins a long list of things that have an outrageous cost that should people should complain about. But it is not the top of my list (that dubious honor [in the US] goes to college tuition, medical bills and housing costs in my opinion).
Click to expand...
My definitively first world problem to complain how rich people run a computer company.

As a Mac user I do care about how Apple runs their business, given I am locked into Apple's business unless I jump platforms. I already have one kid who bailed on Apple products and is now using Windows.

I think Apple's strategy on the Mac has put "growth" on the back-burner, and while that might be financially sound for Apple, I dislike it. Apple could be making choices which lead to it being more competitive and getting more PC marketshare, but Apple doesn't seem to want to do that. If Apple falls into the trap of worrying more about ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) than growth, I think it bodes poorly for the Mac in general.

An aspect of competition is remotely reasonable prices for RAM and storage... which Apple does not.
 
DavidSchaub said:
My argument has always been that $200 extra on top of the base SKU is too much for 8GB of RAM.

Which could just mean that a $1599 laptop with 8GB is ridiculous, or that charging $200 for for 8GB more is ridiculous... Take your pick?
Click to expand...
At this point it's that both is a problem. Why does the MacBook Pro 14 start with 8gb of ram at $1600, to make it clear you might as well go to the Pro chip and another 2GB for the Pro chip model from the $1800 16gb of ram config, at the nice round $2k or another $200.

So they're keeping the $200 price upgrades and an embarrassing base because they hope people pay double the price it should be. We can't make a 32gb pro chip Mac mini a reasonable price of around $1k, right now that's $1700 where you might as well go for the Mac Studio with a Max ship for just $2k and only $300 more.

But hey the base 8GB ram and M chip is available for only $600! If you don't care about anything beyond a useable computer, this model is for you.
 
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.
 
truthsteve said:
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.
Click to expand...
The money issue is not related to the BOM but loss of income from the current outrages money Apple charges for additional RAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back