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.
Apple Testing Four New M4 Macs Ahead of Fall Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If it is a cross the board price increase for 8GB to 16GB it ends up hurting the very bottom of the market that was satisfied with 8GB or limited by the previous entry level price point. As a result it will hurt some consumers and drive away some of them. Although, Apple might have assumed they would pick up enough new business to compensate for any losses from the bottom of their existing market.
This would not be neutral for consumers. Although it could be a compelling business case.
Hopefully, the Mac mini will receive a redesign this year, and not just the M4 Chip 😉
Yeah but remember that remaining 8GB is equivalent to 16GB on a Windows machine!
The photo for this article clearly shows a Studio form factor device, but the meat of the article doesn't even mention the Studio.
Last edited:
'10 core gpu'
How many folks in here understand what that means in terms of power? It's as obtuse as all get out.
My m1 Max has 24. Almost 2.5x. I know it's not the same, but a baseline 10 sounds awfully low considering this is the fourth gen chipset.
I'm not even sure what they use to test power of the GPU especially since we don't have any games that run well enough for it to make a difference. I'm sure there's something I just can't think of it right now. Likely after effects and Final cut rendering or something?
Anyway my point is that the quality of these gpus have been way way overstated in my opinion.. I remember years ago Apple was comparing them to the efficiency of a 3070 or 3060. Pure jokes, efficiency means nothing if you're getting 30 FPS on a Mac when you can get 120 on PC.
Just thinking out loud. Whatever works. The mini models will benefit nicely at least before thermal considerations, they don't pull the same shenanigans again with slower SSD and less performance cores.
Everyone have a great freaking day LOL
How many folks in here understand what that means in terms of power? It's as obtuse as all get out.
My m1 Max has 24. Almost 2.5x. I know it's not the same, but a baseline 10 sounds awfully low considering this is the fourth gen chipset.
I'm not even sure what they use to test power of the GPU especially since we don't have any games that run well enough for it to make a difference. I'm sure there's something I just can't think of it right now. Likely after effects and Final cut rendering or something?
Anyway my point is that the quality of these gpus have been way way overstated in my opinion.. I remember years ago Apple was comparing them to the efficiency of a 3070 or 3060. Pure jokes, efficiency means nothing if you're getting 30 FPS on a Mac when you can get 120 on PC.
Just thinking out loud. Whatever works. The mini models will benefit nicely at least before thermal considerations, they don't pull the same shenanigans again with slower SSD and less performance cores.
Everyone have a great freaking day LOL
Yes and then it will take Apple a year or two before they realise they need to drop the price back down. See the iPad 10. They raised the price of the base iPad then when the basic iPad finally got USB-C, before dropping it back down to a normal price this year.
I wonder if we’ve reached the point where PC manufacturers are going with 16gb minimum then apple had to follow suit.
Not because they are photocopying Microsoft but because demand is surely going to start slipping and prices for 16gb will drop while 8gb becomes less economic to buy in the long run.
Not because they are photocopying Microsoft but because demand is surely going to start slipping and prices for 16gb will drop while 8gb becomes less economic to buy in the long run.
The interesting point here is if Apple raise entry prices by $200 (the reported cost of a 8 to 16gb ram upgrade now).
Would an entry level M2 Mac get a price cut because it’s still the original SKU?
In terms of a Mac mini that would mean keeping the original shape design around which sounds unlikely so Apple would need to deliberately put an M2 motherboard into the new design.
I’d also have imagined that the binned M4 SKU (8 core, 8 gpu) would cost $100 less than the full fat one at retail (going on previous mac pricing schemes). The mini usually came with the full fat cpu out of the gate (unlike the iMac 24).
What if the binned one is now going to be the entry level cpu going forward and that part subsidises the move to 16gb?
We could be talking a $100 price increase for a binned m4 mini with 16gb ram assuming no additional increase due to redesign.
And maybe old m2 minis hang around at third party retailers for 50-100 USD discounts for a while much like old series iPhones might. They’d be stuck at 8/256 and 8/512 SKUs with no BTO options unless specific retailers get pre-upgraded SKUs to sell from time to time. It’s happening now with older M1 iMacs and M1 Mac studios (and currently M2 iPad Pros) in the U.K. with retailers such as Costco.
The only thing I find odd is that the M4 will be half a year old already when it finally comes to Mac.
8-core M4 will still be a very capable machine for most people. And 16GB base yes thank you.
Macbook Air M4 configurable to 32GB in 2025? Tempting..
Macbook Air M4 configurable to 32GB in 2025? Tempting..
Previous articles has mentioned a new Mac Mini form factor. It's rumored to be a bit bigger than the Apple TV, whilst in the Studio's form.
If they add 16GB RAM I am pretty sure they do something stupid like always locking/reserving 8GB to AI. I.e. you still only get 8GB for everything else.
I’m on this camp.
Also, it’s just too easy to flood the forums with all the configurations we don’t need, will never buy, we don’t care for or generally dislike.
Maybe once or twice would be ok for awareness (make it a sticky PSA post maybe), but it’s literally a trendy comment to bank on every single MR update and more akin to a muscle flex.
I remember when the fully revamped Ford Mustang 2015 launched. A thing of beauty.
The very base model had a 2.0L Turbocharged “EcoBoost” engine… yes, a muscle car in the 21st century had a totally non muscle car heart powering it, but quite affordable (at the time that is, before this insane inflation).
Random forums and Reddit became WWIII… I personally found that the worst offenders were those publicly indirectly shaming those that could finally afford the non V8 engine but still loads of fun car.
The premise is understandably also the desire to see Apple make the base+1 model the new base but with old base prices.
The sentiment often driven by comparing to PC counterparts, but this can get complicated quick…
Macs models are mostly just changing the RAM and storage, while still offering great battery, chassis, screens, mic, speakers, etc etc no matter which configuration.
Brief comments can’t address what manufacturers get away with to offer those amazingly low prices elsewhere… there are some experiences buried around here were even if you got the latest CPU/128GB RAM/RTX4070 on a (not so)cheap laptop, it would still chug for specific use cases because the whole architecture and choice of channels/components combinations would “saturate” (can’t remember what was the exact explanation). That person switched to a 32GB MacBook and didn’t look back.
Manufacturers can skim not only on plastic chassis and cheaper screens and mics but also on quite important internal details (even if the components are labeled top specs individually, like “DDR5” for RAM).
TLDR; the simplest and compact statement still is “buy what you need AND can afford” (whether Mac or others).
Probably something like this. Mac Mini M4 16Gb close to last iteration’s price would be too good.
TBH I reckon some of these are controlled leaks. We all know they happen, I wouldn’t put it past any company.
Well said and a perfect analogy.
Many here *assume* all Apple customers have needs similar to theirs as tech enthusiasts. When in fact the bulk of Apple's 1 Billion active customer base are not tech enthusiasts and have relatively pedestrian computing needs.
ie... word processing, simple spreadsheets, email, web surfing, making reminders and notes, making photos with basic editing, etc. For them 8 GB of RAM is perfect.
They're not finding the next prime number, mining bitcoin, decrypting adversary military communications, or editing the next Spielberg movie.
They're small business owners/parents/plumbers/real estate agents/artists/, people who need to balance their checkbooks, send and receive email from their friends, listen to music, set a few reminders for school PTA meetings or when to change their car's oil, send and receive messages, watch a YouTube video on how to fix their toilet, and on and on. Those activities don't require 16/32/64 GB of RAM.
For those who believe they need more memory... Apple has you covered. Simply pay for it when configuring your Apple computer for purchase.
Last edited:
For most of these people is an IPad base model or a Chromebook the right choice, they don‘t even need 8gb!
Who buys a MacBook and is willing to pay the higher price? These are users who do more with the MacBook, even with the tasks you mentioned, 8gb Ram are already utilised.
But this discussion will soon be over anyway, because Apple intelligence will not work with 8gb.
Maybe Apple should finally bring out a MacBook SE, which can then have 8gb Ram without AI.
I generally don't understand why users defend Apple's insane policy with mini Ram equipment, it's simply outrageous and an exploitation of market power. They should just lower the upgrade charges to a tolerable level, e.g. $100, even then the profit will not decrease because users will buy more upgrade steps, like me for example.
Let’s wait and see how much of a price increase, if any, there is.
Ten years ago I bought an iMac with 8 GB and found immediately that it was not enough. So I ordered a pair of 8GB memory sticks. Sticks like that cost $10 on Amazon today.
16 GB on a $499 Mac should not be a problem, today. Apple is just price gouging.