Apple needs to make 16 GB of Ram standard or they may never have a laptop monopoly.

[kschendel]

The argument that Apple would have to raise the price if they upped the base to 16Gb doesn't match history. Unless I missed something when researching, the starting price of the base 13" MacBook Air model went DOWN in price when they upped the base RAM from 2Gb to 4Gb in 2012. When they went from 4Gb to 8Gb in 2017, the price remained $999.

It may not match history, but that's as relevant as suggesting that a change in ice cream flavors triggered the Great Depression. Pricing history is 100% meaningless unless conditions remain similar, and they certainly haven't.

I watch all this angst over 16 GB with some amusement. If you need 16 GB, buy 16 GB. The argument seems to be "eventually, someday, probably, everyone will need 16GB" -- and until eventually someday probably rolls around, I see no reason why Apple shouldn't sell 8 GB configurations if people want to buy them. And as for the longevity of the 8 GB configuration, it's just as reasonable to argue that because memory doubled last time (4 to 8), the useful lifetime of the configuration should also have doubled. Reality is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Analog Kid]

true.
a "$1 ballpoint pen" should in fact be $10.000-20.000 since those are completely professional tools too that enable me to write multi million selling award winning books or theses!

Sorry, I'm not following. You don't think successful professionals pay higher margins for writing tools than school children? What are the equivalents to the Apple Silicon processor, MacOS and unibody enclosure in this analogy?

 

[Allen_Wentz]

So why not start at 4GB? The issue is that for a solid machine, in today’s world, 8GB, IMO, is not enough. Apple was doubling the ram in new iterations for years, yet we’ve been at 8 GB for around a decade. With current multitasking, it’s just not enough. Relying on virtual memory is not sufficient.

Also, a computer’s hardware cost bears little resemblance to what Apple charges, as they have the highest markup in the industry. The cost is based on market value. Considering that Apple just lost market share, with Mac sales down nearly 40%, consumers are certainly rethinking computer value.

I fully disagree and consider the statement "Considering that Apple just lost market share, with Mac sales down nearly 40%, consumers are certainly rethinking computer value" to be false. The entire industry has had shrinking sales, and IMO the one reporting period you cite is mostly due to Apple's failure to provide product (like M2 MBPs) Q4 2022 for the winter holiday selling season.

We do not know what caused the Q4 sales failure (supply, M2 yields, etc.), but it was due to product unavailability, not due to too-high prices. I expect Apple's market share to present as just fine when looked at over a longer, more appropriate reporting period. E.g. yesterday I spent $4k+ on an M2 MBP that would have been spent Q4 if the high end M2 MBPs had not been delayed. There were lots of folks like me who would have spent on Apple Q4 - - except for lack of available upgraded product.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Are people of the opinion that Apple shouldn't raise the base level to 16Gb (with the same current pricing of the 8Gb), of the opinion that it should stay that way forever, or at least the foreseeable future? How long until starting at 16Gb would be appropriate?

Just for history, 8Gb has been the base level RAM in the Macbook Air since 2017, so for about 6 years. The base level RAM was 4Gb for 5 years, and was 2Gb for 4 years. (Near as I can tell, 2008 was when starting RAM was raised from 1Gb to 2Gb on Macbooks).

Here's the full timeline of MacBook Air base model RAM.

2008 (original) -> 2Gb
2012 -> 4Gb
2017 -> 8Gb

So, take it for what its worth that a product that's been around for 15 years has seen 2 bumps in base-level RAM.

The argument that Apple would have to raise the price if they upped the base to 16Gb doesn't match history. Unless I missed something when researching, the starting price of the base 13" MacBook Air model went DOWN in price when they upped the base RAM from 2Gb to 4Gb in 2012. When they went from 4Gb to 8Gb in 2017, the price remained $999.

Sorry but your analytical viewpoint is fatally flawed. RAM utility is totally non-linear for lots of reasons, primarily due to OS/apps memory management and usage, which are constantly evolving. We have watched that evolution, starting with sneakernet diskette changing 128k, through Photoshop sequestering its own RAM with scratch disks, to HDD swap, to faster SSD swap, to far faster Apple-specific SSD swap, to Apple's Unified Memory Architecture (UMA). My guess is that UMA is disrupting future RAM utilization in a big way right now.

Edit: In answer to the question of your first paragraph: Only Apple can know how the combo of memory management/OS/SSD speeds/UMA/RAM costs and users' needs all interact to determine what the minimum RAM level should be. What we do know is that it is non-linear and constantly changing.

E.g. My workflow today is running under 16 GB of RAM that is constantly maxed out, but Monterey still lets me get work done (albeit with some hiccups and slowdowns); a decade ago the OS would simply have crashed or slowed intolerably. So yes, Apple's memory management may allow running under 8 GB RAM for a very long time for less demanding users. Apple probably will not raise from 8 until the always-falling cost of RAM makes it internally cost-effective to do so. That might be tomorrow or it might be 2025; UMA is a new paradigm.

Note that $400 to add +32 GB RAM of Apple's superfast on-chip UMA feels like a huge bargain to those of us who paid $400 for 2 MB of third-party RAM in the past. That is why I included 96 GB RAM instead of 64 in yesterday's MBP purchase order. My expectation is that UMA will cause OS/apps evolution to take advantage of that RAM by midway in the lifecycle of the new MBP - - if not sooner.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I watch all this angst over 16 GB with some amusement. If you need 16 GB, buy 16 GB.

The frustration is that the base configs are what end up all across the retailer landscape, and only those third parties ever do any discounting and/or sales.

If Apple ever adjusted prices on older models/components, things would look and feel differently.

One example that's amazing to me... The fully loaded up M1 MBA (16GB/2TB) refurbished price from Apple has never moved an inch. It just keeps getting older and yet never drops a dime in their asking price. Just nuts.

I might have bought one of those at one point -- but not with it just getting older and older, and a worse and worse value.

 

[Analog Kid]

I fully disagree and consider the statement "Considering that Apple just lost market share, with Mac sales down nearly 40%, consumers are certainly rethinking computer value" to be false. The entire industry has had shrinking sales, and IMO the one reporting period you cite is mostly due to Apple's failure to provide product (like M2 MBPs) Q4 2022 for the winter holiday selling season.

We do not know what caused the Q4 sales failure (supply, M2 yields, etc.), but it was due to product unavailability, not due to too-high prices. I expect Apple's market share to present as just fine when looked at over a longer, more appropriate reporting period. E.g. yesterday I spent $4k+ on an M2 MBP that would have been spent Q4 if the high end M2 MBPs had not been delayed.

And I think it's pretty clear that if people aren't willing to pay what Apple feels a Mac is worth, then Apple will simply stop selling those Macs. They've never been particularly concerned with marketshare, just that they can create a sustainable business.

 

[tornadowrangler]

It may not match history, but that's as relevant as suggesting that a change in ice cream flavors triggered the Great Depression. Pricing history is 100% meaningless unless conditions remain similar, and they certainly haven't.

I watch all this angst over 16 GB with some amusement. If you need 16 GB, buy 16 GB. The argument seems to be "eventually, someday, probably, everyone will need 16GB" -- and until eventually someday probably rolls around, I see no reason why Apple shouldn't sell 8 GB configurations if people want to buy them. And as for the longevity of the 8 GB configuration, it's just as reasonable to argue that because memory doubled last time (4 to 8), the useful lifetime of the configuration should also have doubled. Reality is somewhere in the middle.

The relevance can be determined by the reader. Sorry I don't get the reference to ice cream and the Great Depression. You are probably way smarter than me so no worries.

I provided the information because some people seemed to think that Apple would be expected to raise the price if they stopped offering the 8Gb version.

I personally don't care one way or another. I have a 8GB M1 that has worked just fine for me. Just trying to give information and references on which people can inform their opinions.

 

[MmkLucario]

Because you have 16 GB!

It’s an Intel model. So 16GB on an Intel model behaves like 8GB on an Apple Silicon model.

 

[monstermash]

Maybe we can get "the regulators" to require all computers come with at least 16GB of RAM and use socketed RAM, processors, hard drives and other components so that users can swap them out....and also that every parking lot come with an EV charger for every other space.

 

[WilliApple]

Maybe we can get "the regulators" to require all computers come with at least 16GB of RAM and use socketed RAM, processors, hard drives and other components so that users can swap them out....and also that every parking lot come with an EV charger for every other space.

Then unified ram wouldn’t work properly and Apple would not have an advantage at all. Also, thicker laptops…

 

[monstermash]

Then unified ram wouldn’t work properly and Apple would not have an advantage at all. Also, thicker laptops…

That's not the problem of "the regulators". Their role is to regulate, not to ensure you have what you want or need.

 

[tornadowrangler]

Sorry but your analytical viewpoint is fatally flawed. RAM utility is totally non-linear for lots of reasons, primarily due to OS/apps memory management and usage, which are constantly evolving. We have watched that evolution, starting with sneakernet diskette changing 128k, through Photoshop sequestering its own RAM with scratch disks, to HDD swap, to faster SSD swap, to far faster Apple-specific SSD swap, to Apple's Unified Memory Architecture (UMA). My guess is that UMA is disrupting future RAM utilization in a big way right now.

Edit: In answer to the question of your first paragraph: Only Apple can know how the combo of memory management/OS/SSD speeds/UMA/RAM costs and users' needs all interact to determine what the minimum RAM level should be. What we do know is that it is non-linear and constantly changing.

E.g. My workflow today is running under 16 GB of RAM that is constantly maxed out, but Monterey still lets me get work done (albeit with some hiccups and slowdowns); a decade ago the OS would simply have crashed or slowed intolerably. So yes, Apple's memory management may allow running under 8 GB RAM for a very long time for less demanding users. Apple probably will not raise from 8 until the always-falling cost of RAM makes it internally cost-effective to do so. That might be tomorrow or it might be 2025; UMA is a new paradigm.

Note that $400 to add +32 GB RAM of Apple's superfast on-chip UMA feels like a huge bargain to those of us who paid $400 for 2 MB of third-party RAM in the past. That is why I included 96 GB RAM instead of 64 in yesterday's MBP purchase order. My expectation is that UMA will cause OS/apps evolution to take advantage of that RAM by midway in the lifecycle of the new MBP - - if not sooner.

I wasn't expressing a viewpoint on if the base RAM should be increased or not. But, thank you for responding with an answer to the question I asked. It makes sense.

I'm not in the "8Gb is not enough" camp. My main purpose in the post was to show that in the past, Apple has bumped base specs on this timescale without increasing the base price. If you want to argue that 8Gb is enough, then argue that. No need to add the claim that if they boosted the base model to 16Gb, that they would have to increase the base price. I just don't think that's very convincing.

For the record, I have a 8Gb M1 that has worked well for me and I do light video editing and Xcode. I actually opted to upgrade the hard drive to 1Tb instead of the RAM, so it's not that RAM is that important to me.

 

[Analog Kid]

I provided the information because some people seemed to think that Apple would be expected to raise the price if they stopped offering the 8Gb version.

Apple would be expected to raise their price if all things remained equal. In the example you're giving, spanning 15 years of time and technology, all things do not remain equal. History is not a guide to the future here, and looking at two datapoints in a 15 year dataset isn't terribly informative.

 

[tornadowrangler]

Apple would be expected to raise their price if all things remained equal. In the example you're giving, spanning 15 years of time and technology, all things do not remain equal. History is not a guide to the future here, and looking at two datapoints in a 15 year dataset isn't terribly informative.

Yeah, it's easy to say that when the history doesn't match your opinion. If they HAD increased the price with previous RAM boosts, then I'm sure some of those same people saying "it doesn't matter what they did previously" would be using that history as a reason to expect it.

You say things do not remain equal and history is not a guide to the future here, but haven't given a reason why.

Again, my personal opinion is that 8Gb is fine and there's no pressing need to raise it. However, I haven't been presented with a convincing argument that if they did, they would raise the price along with it.

 

[CTHarrryH]

I'm sure the average user doesn't have many thousands of photos and doesn't do photo editing on it. Most probably do email, browsing some document creation etc.
Sure there is a need to more storage and more memory but not probably for the average user

 

[monstermash]

Yeah, it's easy to say that when the history doesn't match your opinion. If they HAD increased the price with previous RAM boosts, then I'm sure some of those same people saying "it doesn't matter what they did previously" would be using that history as a reason to expect it.

You say things do not remain equal and history is not a guide to the future here, but haven't given a reason why.

Again, my personal opinion is that 8Gb is fine and there's no pressing need to raise it. However, I haven't been presented with a convincing argument that if they did, they would raise the price along with it.

By the time they give you 16GB for the same price as they currently give you 8GB, people will be complaining that they should be giving you 24GB for that price.

They will also still be complaining about the cost of RAM upgrades from Apple.

 

[usagora]

But then you have to pay extra. People want it for free.

Well, I'd like the whole computer for free. Not how life works, sorry. They can work a little more and save a little more and then buy what they need.

 

[salamanderjuice]

Apple would be expected to raise their price if all things remained equal. In the example you're giving, spanning 15 years of time and technology, all things do not remain equal. History is not a guide to the future here, and looking at two datapoints in a 15 year dataset isn't terribly informative.

You can go back with more than two data points if you want. Generally when they bump the base RAM and storage it hasn't historically raised the price unless there was an entire redesign.

For example, the original base model iMac shipped with 32MB RAM for $1300 in 1998, this was bumped to 64MB in 2000 for $999, then 128MB in 2001, then the G4 iMac was released for $1300 with 128MB, then that doubled to 256MB still at $1300, next doubling happened in 2005 with the iMac G5 to 512MB at $1300, then 1GB late 2006 for $1200, 2GB in 2009 for $1200, 4GB in 2010 for $1200, and then 8GB in 2014 for $1099. The current base model iMac is still at 8GB 9 years later. You can repeat the same thing with other models. It's really rare that the price goes up on the base model when the RAM gets bumped.

RAM is still falling in price over time. Not as fast as before for sure but it's still falling.

 

[Analog Kid]

You say things do not remain equal and history is not a guide to the future here, but haven't given a reason why.

Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

Over the past 15 years, we've seen changes in MacOS, changes in applications, changes in the language that OS and those applications are written in, changes in coprocessing requirements, changes in Apple's internal business models, gone through two massive recessions and a pandemic, changes in exchange rates, changes in geopolitical relationships and tariff regimes, changes in supply chain constraints, changes in the main system processor, changes in how memory is used and shared among processes, changes in SSD speeds, changes in process nodes and fabrication technology, changes in user workloads, changes in communication technologies, changes in display technologies, and changes in assembly processes. Just to name a few.

Amid all of those variables and more, you pointed to two changes in RAM configuration and assigned the price change entirely to that.

Does that clarify my comment a bit?

I haven't been presented with a convincing argument that if they did, they would raise the price along with it.

You can buy a 16GB machine today. It costs more than the 8GB machine.

Again, this seems really obvious.

 

[Analog Kid]

RAM is still falling in price over time. Not as fast as before for sure but it's still falling.

Which has little to nothing to do with how Apple sets their prices. But you and everyone else on this thread already know that because when Apple reduces the RAM from 16GB to 8GB, they discount the system by more than the cost difference of that RAM.

Screaming silicon spot prices into the wind won't change anything.

 

[salamanderjuice]

Which has little to nothing to do with how Apple sets their prices. But you and everyone else on this thread already know that because when Apple reduces the RAM from 16GB to 8GB, they discount the system by more than the cost difference of that RAM.

Screaming silicon spot prices into the wind won't change anything.

I'm sorry? What? When have they ever once reduced the RAM? Historical trends are no good, but hypotheticals matter? What?

Obviously they can set prices however they want but I'm really tired of seeing "If they bump the RAM they'll have to raise the price!" nonsense all over this thread. No they don't. Falling RAM prices explains this.

 

[fisherking]

was thinking about the thread title. so, if apple did make 16gb ram the minimum, they might somehow then score a 'laptop monopoly'? 🤔

ie, "i am abandoning windows and my laptop, because apple now has 16gb ram as a minimum"

hmmmmm 🤣

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm sorry? What? When have they ever once reduced the RAM? Historical trends are no good, but hypotheticals matter? What?

Isn't that the whole topic of this thread? The low end Air has 8GB less than the 16GB midrange version and it is $200 cheaper. I don't think anyone believes removing that RAM saved them $200. They gave some of that up in margin to provide an entry level product.

Obviously they can set prices however they want but I'm really tired of seeing "If they bump the RAM they'll have to raise the price!" nonsense all over this thread. No they don't. Falling RAM prices explains this.

Do you think the M2 Max is made from $400 more sand than the M2 Pro?

If sand gets cheaper, will they start just giving everyone a Max for free?

 

[Analog Kid]

was thinking about the thread title. so, if apple did make 16gb ram the minimum, they might somehow then score a 'laptop monopoly'? 🤔

ie, "i am abandoning windows and my laptop, because apple now has 16gb ram as a minimum"

hmmmmm 🤣

I think the original thread title was "It's been a few days since we rehashed old arguments about RAM", but it was too on the nose...

 

[TechnoMonk]

You can go back with more than two data points if you want. Generally when they bump the base RAM and storage it hasn't historically raised the price unless there was an entire redesign.

For example, the original base model iMac shipped with 32MB RAM for $1300 in 1998, this was bumped to 64MB in 2000 for $999, then 128MB in 2001, then the G4 iMac was released for $1300 with 128MB, then that doubled to 256MB still at $1300, next doubling happened in 2005 with the iMac G5 to 512MB at $1300, then 1GB late 2006 for $1200, 2GB in 2009 for $1200, 4GB in 2010 for $1200, and then 8GB in 2014 for $1099. The current base model iMac is still at 8GB 9 years later. You can repeat the same thing with other models. It's really rare that the price goes up on the base model when the RAM gets bumped.

RAM is still falling in price over time. Not as fast as before for sure but it's still falling.

It’s moot point with Apple Silicon. Though RAM is not part of SOC, it’s packaged close to CPU/GPU in single package. It’s trading High Bandwidth/ performance of Unified memory with expandability.
There was a definite case to be made when Apple was using Intel Chips with separate RAM slots.
Apple is subsidizing the low end entry level Macs with upgraded models.