How can Apple sell a Mac with 8GB of RAM in 2023 and call it "Pro"

[Melbourne Park]

If SSD manufacturers decided to stop producing 256Gb modules, and start with 512Gb, would Apple be pissed?

No, it would not piss off Apple. In fact it might please them. They'd just work out a way to disable half the capacity. And make it so that if hackers tried to open up the extra capacity, the mac would be permanently bricked.

Apple low memory and disk units would be below Apples cost including its "normal" "Apple" profit. Apple offers them with the expectation that people will upgrade to a workable disk size and Ram size. Apple presumes few will buy them, and if they do, Apple sales of them would be viewed as a loss and would write those losses off as marketing expenditures.

 

[Howard2k]

No, it would not piss off Apple. In fact it might please them. They'd just work out a way to disable half the capacity. And make it so that if hackers tried to open up the extra capacity, the mac would be permanently bricked.

Apple low memory and disk units would be below Apples cost including its "normal" "Apple" profit. Apple offers them with the expectation that people will upgrade to a workable disk size and Ram size. Apple presumes few will buy them, and if they do, Apple sales of them would be viewed as a loss and would write those losses off as marketing expenditures.

Yep, that makes total sense. That’s why stores have historically carried the lower end ones. They’re happy to do that for Apple and just deal with 95% of them being returned.

Your logic is sound.

 

[mode11]

Yep, that makes total sense. That’s why stores have historically carried the lower end ones. They’re happy to do that for Apple and just deal with 95% of them being returned.

Your logic is sound.

The people who buy the lowest end models simply can’t justify the extra spend (~£400) to get a 16GB/512GB version. It doesn’t mean they won’t be inconvenienced later when they run out of storage (or that they don’t understand that), they just have a hard limit on budget.

So they won’t be taking anything back - there’s no cheaper model to buy.

 

[ric22]

The people who buy the lowest end models simply can’t justify the extra spend (~£400) to get a 16GB/512GB version. It doesn’t mean they won’t be inconvenienced later when they run out of storage (or that they don’t understand that), they just have a hard limit on budget.

So they won’t be taking anything back - there’s no cheaper model to buy.

You're right. And "justify" is a key word. When you know their upgrade prices are pure highway robbery- the SSD price difference to Apple is no more than a couple of dollars- then it's not about what you can afford but what you can justify. You know they're fleecing you, so you have to decide if it's worth it or not.

 

[Howard2k]

The people who buy the lowest end models simply can’t justify the extra spend (~£400) to get a 16GB/512GB version. It doesn’t mean they won’t be inconvenienced later when they run out of storage (or that they don’t understand that), they just have a hard limit on budget.

So they won’t be taking anything back - there’s no cheaper model to buy.

Sure. But this isn’t a situation where Apple isn’t selling the lower end models. They clearly are.

 

[MacCheetah3]

When you know their upgrade prices are pure highway robbery- the SSD price difference to Apple is no more than a couple of dollars- then it's not about what you can afford but what you can justify. You know they're fleecing you, so you have to decide if it's worth it or not.

Really, why does that matter? Whether Apple’s profit is 5% or 500%, I need to decide if the $200 or whatever (added) cost is worthwhile to me. In other words, if Apple’s profit is only $0.01, it would have better value to you?

I’m not defending Apple. The price tag is the cost, and that’s what my consideration is… For the most part. I can’t do much/anything about it, however, for me, companies profiteering on essentials, such as housing, is truly an extortion to be upset about.

 

[ric22]

Really, why does that matter? Whether Apple’s profit is 5% or 500%, I need to decide if the $200 or whatever (added) cost is worthwhile to me. In other words, if Apple’s profit is only $0.01, it would have better value to you?

I’m not defending Apple. The price tag is the cost, and that’s what my consideration is… For the most part. I can’t do much/anything about it, however, for me, companies profiteering on essentials, such as housing, is truly an extortion to be upset about.

Why does the ludicrous upgrade cost matter? You might be happy being treated like mud but most people don't. Why does it matter if people feel a charge is punitive? People don't like punitive charges. Who wants to be treated unfairly????

As you're probably aware, Apple's profits on individual Macs are about as high as they have ever been due to the crash in component costs- as they themselves claimed last week. While component costs were crashing they put up Mac prices. Obviously I'd be happier if they hadn't been rising prices despite falling costs. Who wouldn't be? You'd have to be insane.

 

[mode11]

Sure. But this isn’t a situation where Apple isn’t selling the lower end models. They clearly are.

Actually, I replied to your previous comment whilst out and about, and was thinking of the MBA. Having looked at the Apple website, the base M3 14" MBP comes with 512GB as standard, so personally I'd just ignore the 8GB spec and pay the extra £200 for 16GB. And consider a base 14" MBP to cost £1900.

I don't think anyone should be spending £1700 in 2024 on an 8GB laptop; if that's your bag, just get an Air. Or if your projected needs are that light, get a refurb / second-hand M1 laptop for even less.

 

[Corefile]

No, it would not piss off Apple. In fact it might please them. They'd just work out a way to disable half the capacity. And make it so that if hackers tried to open up the extra capacity, the mac would be permanently bricked.

This is called short-stroking.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Apple's also knows that by selling under future spec notebooks, such notebooks while fulfilling a lower cost need, and will not be able to be used for anything warranting the capabilities of the processor. And that issue will get more critical over time as the upgraded OSs will contain more bloat wear. So such notebooks will have a shorter life span. Which means such buyers will come back sooner than buyers who forked out more to buy more memory and storage space. Apple would predict that those returning for another notebook would not fall for minimum specs again - so apple "wins" again. Unless of course the old Apple client gets annoyed and goes and buys a PC.

From a utility and ethical stance, Apple should not be selling notebooks that will have shorter life spans and won't be able to cope with future OSs getting bigger. Clearly though Apple's marketing don't want their customers to be humiliated by paying a lot more for an Apple notebook computer than a PC version. So PC users see the Mac prices and think "OK, not bad value for a superb Apple notebook". And the low end Apple buyer knows they are trapped in the Apple econ system, and they shrug their shoulders and put up with the over pricing. I suspect many would not tell their friends and family about how much extra they paid for getting their base model notebook to have a bit more memory and internal storage.

Clearly I think that Apple is no longer customer focused.

 

[ric22]

Apple's also knows that by selling under future spec notebooks, such notebooks while fulfilling a lower cost need, and will not be able to be used for anything warranting the capabilities of the processor. And that issue will get more critical over time as the upgraded OSs will contain more bloat wear. So such notebooks will have a shorter life span. Which means such buyers will come back sooner than buyers who forked out more to buy more memory and storage space. Apple would predict that those returning for another notebook would not fall for minimum specs again - so apple "wins" again. Unless of course the old Apple client gets annoyed and goes and buys a PC.

From a utility and ethical stance, Apple should not be selling notebooks that will have shorter life spans and won't be able to cope with future OSs getting bigger. Clearly though Apple's marketing don't want their customers to be humiliated by paying a lot more for an Apple notebook computer than a PC version. So PC users see the Mac prices and think "OK, not bad value for a superb Apple notebook". And the low end Apple buyer knows they are trapped in the Apple econ system, and they shrug their shoulders and put up with the over pricing. I suspect many would not tell their friends and family about how much extra they paid for getting their base model notebook to have a bit more memory and internal storage.

Clearly I think that Apple is no longer customer focused.

Well said 👍🏼👍🏼

 

[mode11]

Apple's also knows that by selling under future spec notebooks, such notebooks while fulfilling a lower cost need, and will not be able to be used for anything warranting the capabilities of the processor. And that issue will get more critical over time as the upgraded OSs will contain more bloat wear. So such notebooks will have a shorter life span. Which means such buyers will come back sooner than buyers who forked out more to buy more memory and storage space. Apple would predict that those returning for another notebook would not fall for minimum specs again - so apple "wins" again. Unless of course the old Apple client gets annoyed and goes and buys a PC.

From a utility and ethical stance, Apple should not be selling notebooks that will have shorter life spans and won't be able to cope with future OSs getting bigger. Clearly though Apple's marketing don't want their customers to be humiliated by paying a lot more for an Apple notebook computer than a PC version. So PC users see the Mac prices and think "OK, not bad value for a superb Apple notebook". And the low end Apple buyer knows they are trapped in the Apple econ system, and they shrug their shoulders and put up with the over pricing. I suspect many would not tell their friends and family about how much extra they paid for getting their base model notebook to have a bit more memory and internal storage.

Clearly I think that Apple is no longer customer focused.

Having to disassemble your laptop and potentially unglue the battery isn't exactly convenient when it comes to renewing that consumable, either. Though the Pro machines are marginally less hassle than the Air at least.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Ironically the car makers are doing much the same with electric cars, which are claimed to protect the planet. Why don't they all have standard sized interchangeable batteries, and at minimum, running at all the same voltages?

 

[mode11]

The battery is probably the main differentiator between electric cars. They all have broadly the same aerodynamics, and all electric motors have very high efficiencies. The battery pack also makes up half the size and weight of the car. If they all used the same battery pack, there’d be little to tell them apart - they’d essentially be white goods.

 

[Alameda]

Ironically the car makers are doing much the same with electric cars, which are claimed to protect the planet. Why don't they all have standard sized interchangeable batteries, and at minimum, running at all the same voltages?

When people think of technology in the present tense, they often forget that it is continually changing. I agree that car batteries should definitely be repairable and serviceable, but they will continue to change substantially in the coming years.

I think the end game for EV’s is 30 second recharge time. Then we’ll pull up to charging stations the way we pull into gas pumps today. And Toyota says they have a new, non-lithium technology that will provide 750 miles of range by 2027.

 

[Melbourne Park]

When people think of technology in the present tense, they often forget that it is continually changing. I agree that car batteries should definitely be repairable and serviceable, but they will continue to charge substantially in the coming years.

Off topic, but if a cell goes down it should be repairable. The issue is that eventually the whole bank will be too poor to operate. A bit like an old Mac. And the car company will charge a gazillion to install a new battery bank. Forcing the owner probably to buy a new vehicle. A bit like Apple's business model.

 

[Alameda]

Off topic, but if a cell goes down it should be repairable. The issue is that eventually the whole bank will be too poor to operate. A bit like an old Mac. And the car company will charge a gazillion to install a new battery bank. Forcing the owner probably to buy a new vehicle. A bit like Apple's business model.

I agree, and I am shocked that we don’t have laws in place. It’s hardly environmental when the entire vehicle must be discarded so easily.

OTOH, I don’t think failure of an individual cell, or even twenty, causes the vehicle to stop functioning. I assume they just keep rolling along and the defect is mapped out.

 

[mode11]

It's interesting to note the pricing of the higher RAM and SSD options on the second hand AS market. They seem to retain almost 100% of their value i.e. £200 each for the 16GB and 512GB options.

This suggests these options are both highly desirable and relatively rare second hand. Of course, those that bought a specced up machine generally aren’t selling yet - their machines are still very capable. Plus, having paid more upfront, they intend to keep the machine longer.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I agree, and I am shocked that we don’t have laws in place. It’s hardly environmental when the entire vehicle must be discarded so easily.

OTOH, I don’t think failure of an individual cell, or even twenty, causes the vehicle to stop functioning. I assume they just keep rolling along and the defect is mapped out.

Yes, they would. But the voltage would drop from the bank where the cell is located. As more cells fail, they more the voltage would drop.

As far as governments go, I think they have not legislated because they do not care about doing something which is confronting to all the multi-national oligopolists that dominate the car business. And I reckon anything that is at all difficult is seen as a political negative, and hence, not to be discussed - or publicly thought about. Especially if it makes CO2 reduction policies seem as requiring thought. They want to sell policies that are very simple. IMO politicians are now dominated by party policy and their own next election result.

 

[mode11]

IMO politicians are now dominated by party policy and their own next election result.

Unlike the good old days, when they didn’t care about winning elections, only the long term good of the country.

 

[Alameda]

Yes, they would. But the voltage would drop from the bank where the cell is located. As more cells fail, they more the voltage would drop.

As far as governments go, I think they have not legislated because they do not care about doing something which is confronting to all the multi-national oligopolists that dominate the car business. And I reckon anything that is at all difficult is seen as a political negative, and hence, not to be discussed - or publicly thought about. Especially if it makes CO2 reduction policies seem as requiring thought. They want to sell policies that are very simple. IMO politicians are now dominated by party policy and their own next election result.

It is something I don’t understand well.
I think that cars need to be repairable, and “repairable“ does not mean, ”replace a $30,000 component.” It should be possible to repair and/or recondition a battery pack, although I don’t have an understanding of what that means exactly: Would it be feasiable to replace 1/3 of the cells, for instance? Would it even be necessary to replace 20%, etc.

We tend to think of technology as static, ‘this is how batteries work,“ because we live in the present. But this technology is changing and improving very rapidly, and EV battery technology in five years might be radically different from what we have today. But no matter what, because it’s about 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the entire vehicle, it needs to be maintainable and repairable, not merely replaceable. For me, personally, that would be a very important consideration before buying an EV.

 

[mode11]

It is something I don’t understand well.
I think that cars need to be repairable, and “repairable“ does not mean, ”replace a $30,000 component.” It should be possible to repair and/or recondition a battery pack, although I don’t have an understanding of what that means exactly: Would it be feasiable to replace 1/3 of the cells, for instance? Would it even be necessary to replace 20%, etc.

We tend to think of technology as static, ‘this is how batteries work,“ because we live in the present. But this technology is changing and improving very rapidly, and EV battery technology in five years might be radically different from what we have today. But no matter what, because it’s about 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the entire vehicle, it needs to be maintainable and repairable, not merely replaceable. For me, personally, that would be a very important consideration before buying an EV.

I'd imagine that cells essentially fail at random, throughout the pack (if failures were grouped in one area, it would suggest inadequate cooling or similar). So even if the pack were split into e.g. 10 individually-replaceable modules, it might not help that much. Ultimately, the whole pack will eventually need replacing; hopefully recycling its lithium is not prohibitively difficult.

There seems to be an expectation that batteries follow the same sort of trajectory as silicon, with rapid year-on-year developments. But Lithium Ion cells have only tripled in power density since the 90's. The real breakthrough is in cost - they're about 1000x cheaper than they were. This is really what made electric vehicles practical - being able to have a tonne of batteries in your car, without it costing £20m.

 

[Melbourne Park]

With traditional battery banks ie lead acid, as the batteries wore (due to lead sulphation) the voltage would drop. Hence battery meters could measure a battery testing the voltage. But Lithium is different - it maintains its voltage until the battery has almost failed. The capacity of the battery however falls ie how long it can power something, such as providing mileage in a vehicle.

So with Lithium Phosphate Iron batteries (which last longer and are as inflammable as wood) if a cell failed, it would be easy to isolate it, and then replace.

If one has a battery bank that has lost for instance 50% of its expected life, what could one do about that with lead acid batteries? Because the battery bank with lead acid has dropped voltage, adding an auxiliary band of batteries would result in the new batteries doing all the work. So the new batteries would have radically reduced their life, due to trying to increase the dropped voltage of the old batteries, which due to sulphating cannot attain the voltage of a new battery. So the old batteries would absorb the new batteries power and waste their power via heat.

With Lithium it is totally different. Because the voltage stays the same for most of the life of the battery, one can add an auxiliary batteries to the circuit, and hence extend the range of the batteries. Without damaging the life of the batteries new batteries.

But companies do not want that to happen. So each company uses battery managers of their own, and they use voltages that are different from each other company. And then they package the battery packs in unique forms. So at every step, they have stopped customers being able to add "their own fuel". And also, the prices of replacement batteries for cars is outrageous.

The actual cells the companies use, have the same voltages, due to the chemistry of each lithium battery type. So lithium cells could be interchangeable between brands of cars and models of cars. But the car companies did not want that to happen.

Car companies do not want standardised battery banks. Or even interchangeable cells. Also the management of the cells would also prevent non factory battery repairs. And if a car owner replaced a faulty cell in a car's battery bank, the car would void warranties and probably void the owner's insurance policy.

Lithium batteries are quite cheap these days. Typically they cell in 12v and 24 v configurations, and 48v for battery banks for solar, etc. Cars are said to be mostly 400 volts. But some are 800. And the actual voltages vary from even model to model. Electric cars have around 4,000 cells. A 12v Lifo battery has four cells in it. A 12.8 volt lead acid battery has 6 cells in it. Connecting cells in series increases the voltage, while connecting in parallel keeps the voltage the same and increases the capacity or mileage. So a car make can add up the same cell outputs, to produce a battery bank that has a different voltage to another car the maker sells. An example is the varying voltages from one Tesla model to another.

The companies looked at how tough the battery business is, and hence decided to prevent competition. And probably electric vehicles could be very long life. Low maintenance too. But for the batteries. No wonder car owners see a standardised battery as killing future sales.

Politicians don't care about the best way - they just chase votes IMO.

I have a sailing yacht, it has batteries, so I'm aware of many of the issues.

 

[Alameda]

I'd imagine that cells essentially fail at random, throughout the pack (if failures were grouped in one area, it would suggest inadequate cooling or similar). So even if the pack were split into e.g. 10 individually-replaceable modules, it might not help that much. Ultimately, the whole pack will eventually need replacing; hopefully recycling its lithium is not prohibitively difficult.

There seems to be an expectation that batteries follow the same sort of trajectory as silicon, with rapid year-on-year developments. But Lithium Ion cells have only tripled in power density since the 90's. The real breakthrough is in cost - they're about 1000x cheaper than they were. This is really what made electric vehicles practical - being able to have a tonne of batteries in your car, without it costing £20m.

No, I don’t think that’s an acceptable solution.

For one thing, battery technology is not static, it changes every year. Replacing 200 individual cells in a car battery in five to ten years will probably be very inexpensive. Or, it may be possible to refresh the entire pack with far superior cells in the future. I understand that there are vitally important safety considerations, but car makers should not use this as an excuse to force consumers to either pay $30,000 or scrap their entire car.

Example: This week, my father-in-law’s car wouldn’t take fuel. I pulled the EVAP canister and out dumped a bunch of carbon pellets. What happened? A small foam screen which held the pellets in the canister failed, and the pellets fell into the evap lines. Common thing.

I cleaned the evap lines, poured all the charcoal out of the canister and put it back in. Car works fine!

So, to properly fix it, I can:
A) Buy a new canister for $550, or
B) Buy two pounds of activated charcoal from a pet store, cut the canister open, put a piece of foam over the opening, fill it with pellets and epoxy the thing shut. Less than $20.

The situation with repairing a car battery is going to be comparable. Car makers should not be permitted to use cryptographic technologies to force you to buy their ridiculously overpriced batteries, at a cost of $10,000’s.

 

[mode11]

No, I don’t think that’s an acceptable solution.

For one thing, battery technology is not static, it changes every year. Replacing 200 individual cells in a car battery in five to ten years will probably be very inexpensive. Or, it may be possible to refresh the entire pack with far superior cells in the future. I understand that there are vitally important safety considerations, but car makers should not use this as an excuse to force consumers to either pay $30,000 or scrap their entire car.

Example: This week, my father-in-law’s car wouldn’t take fuel. I pulled the EVAP canister and out dumped a bunch of carbon pellets. What happened? A small foam screen which held the pellets in the canister failed, and the pellets fell into the evap lines. Common thing.

I cleaned the evap lines, poured all the charcoal out of the canister and put it back in. Car works fine!

So, to properly fix it, I can:
A) Buy a new canister for $550, or
B) Buy two pounds of activated charcoal from a pet store, cut the canister open, put a piece of foam over the opening, fill it with pellets and epoxy the thing shut. Less than $20.

The situation with repairing a car battery is going to be comparable. Car makers should not be permitted to use cryptographic technologies to force you to buy their ridiculously overpriced batteries, at a cost of $10,000’s.

I wasn't advocating for a particular solution. I'd love it if battery packs could be replaced piecemeal, but it's hard to imaging how this would be practical. Getting to any cell would likely involve removing the whole slab of batteries and at least partially disassembling it. Mapping the bad cells as they gradually fail over time seems like a pragmatic solution, with a gradual reduction in range and peak power output over time. Then when it hits an unacceptable level, remove the whole thing.

I expect specialist firms could disassemble the pack, replace a bunch of bad cells, then resell it as a reconditioned pack. Though if it would still contain a whole load of cells that were on the verge of failing, there wouldn't be much point. At that point, the only option would be recycling.

At the end of the day, several thousand 18650 cells aren't going to be cheap. It probably does amount to tens of thousands of pounds; it's just what they cost. I'm sure manufacturers add whatever markup they can get away with, though inflating these costs also decreases the second-hand value of cars (which ultimately feeds into initial purchase decisions), as well as increases the cost of insurance. The cost of replacing battery packs is a bit of a timebomb for the EV market - once they begin expiring en masse, it will be interesting to see how it affects the value proposition of electric cars.

Despite all the hype about electric cars, the low energy density of Lithium cells compared to petrol means the battery is huge and expensive. It's also not surprising that fixing an IC engine, an extremely mature technology at this point, can be done much more cheaply.