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's 2024 M4 Mac Mini: What We Know
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, just looking into an external keyboard and trackpad for a desktop setup for my MBP, and stunned to discover they still charge on Lightning ports ffs. I'd finally gotten rid of all my lightning stuff. Now I'm even contemplating checking out alternate brands just to avoid needing ***** lightning again, sheesh.
Yeah, not to mention SSD size too ffs. I'm on 2TB and have almost filled that, and yet their default is 256GB!!!!!
On that we agree. It’s a win win for Apple. Those that really need the extra Ram will give Apple a massive extra revenue. But citysnaps argument for justifying the 8Gb was that Apple was practically doing consumers a favor by keeping the price of the 8Gb base model low. That’s naive. A 16Gb will not cost much more to make.It has nothing to do with the cost of memory chips. It has to do with the profit and margin Apple receives selling $200 RAM upgrades. It would cost Apple money if 16GB was the base since that would eliminate the $200 RAM upgrade revenue stream.
And surprise most people (even here on MR) think 8GB is still sufficient in 2024 for at least some people.
Who’s 8GB/256GB good for in 2024?
Lots and lots of discussion so let’s vote: (You can have upto 2 votes)forums.macrumors.com
Could I vote with my wallet here? Sure. I could convert my +100 Logic Pro projects to something that’s Windows compatible and untangle me and my family from the Apple ecosystem. It wouldn’t matter to Apple. And your 100 vote survey is also a drop in the ocean. Apple is good at making a profit, locking users in and squeezing the lemon.
The latest Mac I got was the intel iMac 2020 which I upgraded from 8 to 64 Gb aftermarket Ram. That upgrade costed me about the same as apple charges for bumping from 8 to 16 today. Is 64 overkill? Probably, but I got a good deal and 8 Gb wouldn’t be enough. Apple has learned from that mistake and ensures that I can’t make that move again. For my next Mac they decide the profit on those extra ram chips.
It’s gonna be interesting to see how all that swapping affects the longevity of the SSD’s. If that’s really a thing all those happy with 8 Gb won’t see that until after some years.
TL;DR: while I personally hate Apple for their RAM taxes, I fully understand how they profit from it and why as a business they should do it as long as they can. What I don’t understand is how any consumer can defend it unless they have a lot of AAPL’s.
Nope. And hardly naive. It's simply purchasing what you need. And Apple providing a base model that's right for the majority of its MacMini customers.
Similar (in some aspects) to buying a new car and deciding on options beyond the no-frills base model.
Many people just need basic transportation that's reliable and will purchase the basic vehicle. Others, will want extra frills/tech/nicer upholstery/special paint/better stereo/larger display/seat coolers/etc, etc. And of course all of those extra cost features will provide greater extra profits/margins to the car manufacturer (and dealer).
While the above is not a perfect analogy, it does speak to the principle of purchasing what you need/require. If your computing needs are relatively basic (the majority of purchasers) go with 8gb of ram for your MacMini - it will serve you well as attested by many here in previous posts.
If you're into editing 4K/8K videos, using MATLAB for complex large array-based image processing or digital signal processing, finding the next prime number (kidding) etc., purchase extra ram to meet your needs.
No it won't be fine for majority of Apple customers? If you are upgrading for better performance via more powerful technology, then you need more REAL RAM. If not then you might as well buy a toy that serves your needs.
With Apple giving clear intention to pursue gaming, AI, if its not your RAM then your SSD will be working overtime, and what is the point of paying for a top spec computing device, then cuttings its arms and legs off by having it work via extensive swapping.
Didn’t you get the memo? Apple has concluded that no one needs those extra 3” screen unless they are willing to pay for an Apple Studio display. So why ask customers to pay for 27 when all they need is 24 😉
/S
Nope... 8gb of ram is just fine for the majority of Apple customers, which have simple/average computer needs. (simple spreadsheets, email, surfing the web, your kid doing homework, writing letters, doing email, listening to music, placing an Amazon order, managing to-do lists, managing payroll and inventory in a small retail store, and on and on). Many people here on MR reported in the past that their 8gb Mac works just fine for average tasks, with no swapping, and no degraded performance.
If your needs are more complex... ie editing 4K/8K videos, composing/editing multi-track music, using MATLAB in scientific endeavors with multiple large arrays, designing CPU chips, running X-Plane flight simulator, predicting weather from raw scientific data in real time, signal processing experiments, working with complex models in the field of climate change, editing clips for Spielberg's next major movie, and on and on.... it would likely be wise to bump up the memory at time of purchase.
If spending $200 will set you back in a major way for some of the above more complex tasks you're involved with, simply buy a NUC and find happiness.
As I said we know that Apple has its reasons. You cited one.It has nothing to do with the cost of memory chips. It has to do with the profit and margin Apple receives selling $200 RAM upgrades. It would cost Apple money if 16GB was the base since that would eliminate the $200 RAM upgrade revenue stream.
And surprise most people (even here on MR) think 8GB is still sufficient in 2024 for at least some people.
Who’s 8GB/256GB good for in 2024?
Lots and lots of discussion so let’s vote: (You can have upto 2 votes)
That is actually incorrect, because you can't upgrade it to what you WOULD need in the futuro. So you need to futureproof.
So, taking into account the completely ridiculous upgrade prices, Apple should definitively include 16GB as base RAM
That's what I was saying; meaning when buying a MacMini, specify the amount of ram you will need going forward.
Most Apple customers aren't tech-oriented and will be fine with 8gb as I outlined above. Some customers will need more because their computing needs are more complex.
If that extra $200 is really a deal-breaker, simply purchase a NUC and find happiness.
your comment is with respect absolute nuts! Why then pay for a beautiful fast processor, and upgrade your existing system, just to have its performance dragged back by swapping. If you think 8Gb is enough for what you do, then the processor you are using should also be sufficient, as anything demanding will require swapping.
So if you are arguing 8Gb is ok for majority of Apple users, why on earth would they need to upgrade to the latest processor, as its more than likely if their RAM needs are only 8Gb they don't need to upgrade?
It suggests that a lot for Mac users upgrade for ego rather than need, as if you need much faster processing, then the last thing you want to do is suppress that processing by not having enough RAM.
With AI being mooted by Apple along with pursuing games on the Mac, good luck with longevity if you think 8Gb is ok. Again though if 8Gb is ok for meagre needs which can be eaten up just by a lot of tabs being open and browser, then why upgrade at all if 8Gb suits your needs as upgrading to a faster processor on 8Gb seems absolutely nuts.
Last edited:
There could be loads of reasons. First... understand that the majority of users with simple/modest computing needs is not ALL users, and that 8gb of ram works just fine for them. Let's say it's 50-75% - a reasonable assumption.
Perhaps it will be their first Mac Mini. Or they're coming from a pre-2020 Intel Mini. Or their current Mini feels slow for whatever they're doing now. Or they want to buy a Mini so their kid can do homework.
"Why then pay for a beautiful fast processor, and upgrade your existing system, just to have its performance dragged back by swapping"
There will be no swapping for people with modest computing needs. As attested by many users here in the recent past on MR reporting using Macs with 8gb of ram.
Try not to worry about what's good for *other peoples'* needs. Stay more focused on your own. If you need a Mini and are doing complex computing, order it with whatever ram makes sense for your needs.
If it greatly annoys you that Apple charges $200 extra for 16gb of ram, vote with your wallet and get what you need from another computer manufacturer.
Ok, crazy paranoid, “Apple is evil”, theory time:
Baseline Mac mini M4 has 8GB of accessible RAM but with MacOS 15 you can pay a fee the will enable the full 12GB amount of already installed RAM. Where the purpose of custom micron 6GB chips is to enable restricting part of the RAM behind a paywall.
I think this is ludicrous, but sometimes it is fun putting forward a wild crazy rumor. Just for the fun of throwing gasoline's on a fire. [maybe I can get a paid job at Bloomberg too 🤪]
You seem to be grasping at straws now, widening the comment, let alone you have no idea what the 'majority' of users require? Nor do I to be honest. So your guesstimate of 50-75% is based on precisely nothing.
Perhaps their iMac got run over by a stray elephant, well we might as well go for that as some of your suggested reasons.
For the record though even your comment on pre 2020 Macs has no merit. I have 2018 Mac minis still out with customers, running Monterey, and inevitably they've all got more than 8Gb of RAM, and their performance on Monterey is sufficient as they run their processors to best effect, so again, UNLESS they had a compelling performance need they would not in a million years upgrade to a new Mac shackled with 8GB knowing it would mean the processing power they were in effect paying for was being downgraded by insufficient RAM, and as others will no doubt testify, even with some browsers and a few tabs, swapping occurs, and that will be an increasing problem as software complexity increases, let alone the prospect of gaming and AI on device.
You mention me not trying to worry about what's good for other people's needs, which is PRECISELY what you have been suggesting, but mine is about what is practical for the best use of a device and it is really nuts to suggest you have basic needs and 8Gb is OK, and obviously suiting your purpose, so why upgrade to a faster processor curtailed by 8Gb of RAM, it is simply illogical.
That is so funny! While you're proclaiming what's right for other people, and not backing it up with anything substantive other than claiming your assessment is based upon what you *believe* is "practical," and that you know what's best for others. That's what's really "nuts" (borrowing your colorful assessment)! Apparently you're the arbiter of "right"ness and *best*ness for others, without any knowledge of how others are using their computer, or providing any potential use scenarios (such as the wide range of potential use scenarios that I provided previously).
I'll continue to rely on what many people here have reported in the past using Macs with 8gb of ram and suffering no adverse consequences.
Last edited:
if you want to read the post originator. It was not me stating what was right, it was the original poster suggesting that the majority of users were happy with 8Gb. So get it right. For me its a question of logic.
As for not knowing how others use their computers, it was suggested it was for basic use, and if it wasn't then 8Gb would be insufficient. Even Apple have backtracked on their original comment that 8Gb is allegedly on par with 16Gb, now suggesting that 8Gb is suitable for basic use, and if your existing kit is working on basic use at 8Gb...why upgrade to a much faster processor at all, unless of course its the 'got to have the latest brigade'.
But Apple doesn't do that. The 8GB debate only applies to the base M2/M3 (M4 is unknown at this point). You can't upgrade to a faster processor without also upgrading the memory. The current Mini is a good example. There are no stock M2 Minis with more than 8GB. You have to build to order and pay the $200 premium to get 16GB. But the M2 Pro Mini starts at 16GB. You can't get it with 8GB.
Similarly, they keep an M3 MacBook Pro in stock with 16GB, but that is just so you can walk out of the store with it (I think they would have done the same with the M3 Mini, if it had existed). You don’t have to build to order, but you are still paying the premium. There's no discount. But you can't get an M3 Pro MacBook Pro with less than 18GB memory.
On the subject of the premium, Apple since 1998 has always charged a premium for build-to-order memory and storage upgrades. About double what you would pay (for Apple-level quality) if you did it yourself. The debate about it ("the Apple tax") has existed since then. I always just figured it was expensive for them to build to order, so they charged more to encourage you to DIY. Now we're in a different era, DIY is not an option, but nothing has changed. The question is why?
I can only guess that whatever the reason is, it hasn't changed. So the premium is still in place. I think it might have something to do with what Apple can predict and what they can't predict. They can accurately predict how many units they will sell, like iMacs or Minis or MacBooks, but not so much when it comes to memory and storage configurations. That creates expensive headaches, so they charge a premium for it, to maintain their margins overall, among all of the units sold.
People seem to think Apple should reduce their overall margins, to allow customers to somehow "future proof" their SoC, ignoring the reality that limiting factor with regard to the future isn't memory and storage, it's the capacity of the SoC itself. Apple gives you the memory your SoC needs, you can get more, but the base is sufficient for that SoC.
Last edited:
good move on aapl to wait for m4 chips
bring back space grey though
even different colors may be novel
bring back space grey though
even different colors may be novel
Best thing to have happened of late is those new Surface devices that are base spec'd with 16GB RAM and neck and neck (and occasionally ahead!) of MBA M3
Nothing lights a fire quite like competition.
Apple screwing everyone with an 8GB base of RAM (just to drive overpriced upgrades, lets be honest) needs to end.
The low end Surface devices start with 8GB, just like the low end Mac (M standard) devices, and just like low end devices from many manufacturers. This tells me there is a significant market that doesn’t need more than 8GB of RAM.
If you think Apple products are overpriced, that’s a totally different issue. People have been conflating these two issues forever. They try to say Apple’s base specs don’t fill anybody’s needs and therefore it needs to be bumped up while keeping the same price. But that’s a spin which is based on no facts as far as I can tell, other than “it’s [insert current year]” which is possibly the vaguest argument ever. The real issue is they simply don’t like Apple’s prices, ie. they want more for less. Yes, we all do, but if we’re going to try to argue it, then let’s use actual arguments. Otherwise, let’s be real and just say we don’t like it.
Base specs do get bumped up over time, either when manufacturers feel the UX requires it or the market demands it. And the market is not tech enthusiasts complaining on tech forums—it’s regular people giving bad reviews and/or buying competitors’ products because of a bad UX with base specs or overpriced upgrades.
I want to future-proof my next Apple Mac because they are expensive machines. Overpriced upgrade options is bad enough. Not letting anyone ever upgrade RAM or SSD on their machines again is a shame.