I agree but those upgrades have always been $200 USD not $250 USD. If you're going to get all outraged over Apple's pricing at least mention the correct amount.
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.
New Record Low MacBook Deals Include Massive $300 Discount on 15-Inch MacBook Air, Starting at $999
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In Canada it’s $250. Maybe there’s a reason the poster said that as maybe they didn’t mean USD. Maybe it was a mistake. Either way it’s showing way Apple does is hold a capable machine hostage. People can say oh my 8GB Mac ran great for a year that doesn’t mean it will be running great in five years or meet the recommended minimum RAM for some basic things at that time. If Apple hadn’t all ready screwed up with RAM so many times you could say that. Go watch a few scientific or not so scientific videos that show how quickly 8GB of RAM becomes the bottleneck on tasks one wouldn’t even think it was the RAM. It is and all those buyers can’t be wrong. The truth is most aren’t, unless they have a computer engineering degree (I do), and Apple is taking advantage of those people as those Macs with Apple M1-M3 will first see a bottleneck of RAM before any other component - and that’s Apples strategy forcing obsolescence and ensuring they can keep selling Macs with less than adequate specs for years to come to brighten their future and their shareholders future.
They sure can’t do it with honesty or R&D toward new technology. Haha
I'm not pretending to know about customers needs. What I know is, if a customer bought a shiny new M3 MAX MBP with 96GB of RAM and Apple comes up next year or the next with an external GPU that can boost 3D performance up to 2.5 or 3 times faster than what the M3 MAX chip can do but can only be connected to an hypothetic ThunderBolt Pro port that would come even with the base M4 pro machines with 18 GB of RAM, some customers would feel the itch to upgrade or to upgrade earlier than what they had planned. Same with 5G modems or lossless audio. These may not be of good value to you or me, but it can be enough to make some people upgrade faster no matter the amount of RAM their current machine has. Apple has also a tendency to introduce features that arbitrarily work only on the most recent machines like the battery cycle count display on iPhone 15, the pinch gesture on AW9 or the lossless audio on USBC APP 2.
Were you the one saying I was presuming to know customers needs and wants? I just bought a base M2 MB Air to replace a 10 year old MBP I used daily since the time I bought it new in 2013!
Surprisingly, Apple doesn't support it anymore even though it has 16GB of RAM and a perfectly working 512GB SSD while my M2 Air runs Sonoma and all the latest Apple apps with its paltry 8GB of RAM and slow and swap burdened SSD.
I chose 16GB of RAM 10 years ago because I needed to make raw photo editing, not for future proofing. The latest OS that is officially supported on this 10 year old MBP is Big Sur and it was released three years ago. It could surely run Sonoma, but as I said previously, Apple likes to arbitrarily "unfuture" proof their machines with chips, ports and features.
In theory, SSD failure due to swapping is plausible. However, I suspect the possibility for the average customer to use its computer to the point of SSD failure to be incredibly low. I beat the heck of my 10 year old MBD SSD. It's been partitioned to run windows, then repartitioned again, it swapped like crazy during photo editing (even with 16GB RAM), stored high res photos during edition, etc. To this day, it's as fast as it was when new and I encountered absolutely no problem whatsoever with it. And this was a SSD built 10 years ago. So I imagine SSDs improved even more since then.
Of course, this is anecdotal and is solely based on my personal experience and you would be right to mention it. That being said, maybe Apple is also confident in its SSD chips and that is why stock configurations consist of 8GB RAM with 256GB SSD or 8GB with 51GB SSD and not 16GB with 256SSD. Swapping doesn't seem to worry Apple engineers. Nevertheless, having backups is always a necessity. Bad chips exist and no one is ever entirely protected from a hard drive failure whether it's a 256GB SSD or a 4TB one.
A funny thing about SSDs is that even if people seem to be scared about their durability, they are the reason customers keep their computers much longer now. Since their introduction, computers got crazily faster to the point people feel less the need to upgrade which is a good thing for the environment. I never managed to keep using a computer full time for ten years before my SSD equipped RetinaMPB.
In my experience those that pay a premium on a computer do so because they need 32+ GB of RAM for solid works or extreme graphic editing. They make up only a very small niche of Apple customers, but technology is supposed to come cheaper and/or with naturally higher specs. Towards this end Apple has chosen not to keep up with other tech companies because they effectively have a monopoly on Apple users. Now that they've designed their machines to not be upgradable or serviced by anyone else they've cornered the market and have set the specs so low that users feel compelled to upgrade and add that additional ~20% premium just to ensure they don't regret it later.
Also Apple officially discontinues support on older machines not due to hardware but because it's another tactic used to compel users to buy new computers. With some software modifications my 2011 iMac could use OS 14, so it's not the hardware that's the limiting factor. If I bought that with non upgradable RAM and gone with base stats, it would still only be 8 GB instead of 32... making it harder to justify keeping it.
I too have my own story about a 512 GB SSD I had used for maybe 6 years and didn't put significant read/write cycles on, and yet that's no longer useable at all. So I am probably the unlucky one, but this is why I want Apple to use SSD modules. It's simply one 'consumable' item that they needlessly turned into a point of failure and I would feel vastly more comfortable knowing that my computer won't die because of it. If Apple still wants to rig its hardware so only they can replace it for huge cost, I'd still be more comfortable knowing it's an option. When it comes to tablets and phones it doesn't make sense to go modular, especially given their expected life is significantly shorter than a computer. For desktops where size and mass are less relevant, it's outrageous that Apple does this.
This screenshot was taken of an order through the Apple Store, I'm talking about the Best Buy deal in the opening post. If you want to upgrade to 16 GB from eight through Best Buy, the discount is reduced from $300 USD to $250... hence the cost is $250 and not $200.
I agree. Cutting OS support to hardware capable of running it is a way to push users to upgrade. I used to upgrade RAM after the initial purchase so I could avoid Apple's prices. With SSDs being way faster than spinning drives, Apple has found a way to ship as less RAM as possible and way overcharge for more. I refuse to pay these high prices. That's why I got a base model Air. I knew it would perfectly do the job I need for a long enough time, no need to increase Apple margins with their upselling. And they're pretty clever with upselling. Once you start to upgrade an Air, it becomes financially absurd and you realize you are now better to pay a hundred or two more and get the pro model. The base suited my needs and I really wanted the 13" form factor after 10 years carrying a 15" machine, so it was a good buy to me.
The way Apple uses SSDs is worrisome, you are right. I really preferred the way it was done during the first retina MBP era with easily upgradable blades. Now SSDs are soldered and, as it was not enough, the controller is on the SOC. If a NAND chip fails, you're done. You can't even hope to rescue some data on it. Sure, Apple says it is for security reasons, in a way, they're not lying, it's very secure. It is also quite secure for their bottom line. That's one more reason to backup often. I don't do it on iCloud though... I smell another upselling tactic.
Well, this is the point people keep making. These scientific videos that show bottlenecks don't really reflect real world experience for the typical consumer. You might be able to measure some swapping gong on in the background, but the average user running productivity apps never experience the bottlenecks or just doesn't notice it in their day to day usage. How many everyday MBA users spend their time staring at Active Monitor worrying about RAM bottlenecks and SSD swapping? How many even know Active Monitor is on their Mac? How many even know that RAM/SSD swapping is a thing? For every one of these "scientific" videos there are two real world use videos that show the base M2 MBA are great performers and more than enough for typical computing tasks.
My advise is for people to buy the computer that meets their needs. If it is a base MBA, so be it. If it is a maxed-out Pro, that's good too. As for future proofing, it's a piece of tech and has a limited useful life. You will probably move to a new machine for new features rather than specs. So, enjoy your computer now. You can't solve all of tomorrow's problems today.
My thoughts exactly! Here's a simple trick to make your base M2 MacBook Air efficient so you can fully enjoy great performance. Go to the Applications folder, select utilities, select Activity Monitor, move to trash, then empty trash. That's it. No more worries. Enjoy your system, it is a very capable machine.
The problem is the vast majority of consumers are trusting Apple. And Apple doesn’t have their best interests in mind. Apple is focused on making money. Tim Cook can talk a good game but he really cares more about his stock grants being worth more than $100m he gets annually.
So you act like an ostrich and all your problems go away? Unfortunately for Apple, and all these consumers getting duped, that doesn’t resolve the issue. The issue is it doesn’t have enough RAM and consumers aren’t being told to upgrade them. Most consumers just buy them and they know things about storage space and may get an upsell there. But almost no user will be safe with 8GB for a long term solution. That’s the problem, people can say oh mine has worked fine for a year with 8GB of RAM, but the point is that as time goes on that resource is needed more and more. Apple has done this in products for years and it’s a shame. Of course the people who know about computers may hear Apple say well 8GB in a Mac is like 16GB in a PC which is such a lie anyways, that’s Apple proving right there they know exactly what they’re doing if they’re willing to lie about it.
Apple makes some great looking products. Unfortunately, 8GB of RAM is the one bottleneck users can do nothing about in the future except go buy a new Mac. And that’s Apple’s play here. That’s the con. That’s the long con. Everyone like MKBHD says these M-series Macs are so good just don’t know how Apple is going to make people keep upgrading. Well, a base offering of 8GB of RAM is surely a great start to it. Even if it works for you right now, that doesn’t mean it will in three or five years and that’s forcing obsolescence and creating more demand for future AAPL products that Tim counts on.
So, for the person that doesn't use anything more taxing than MS Office (4GB system requirement), what real world problems do you expect in the next 5 years for the base 8GB M2 MBA. Don't tell me about micro second bottlenecks that a human being can not even detect. Talk to me about something that will have a meaningful impact on the user experience for a person with typical college/office needs. The other day, I was talking to someone with a ten y.o. base MBA (4GB), and they still use it everyday for productivity apps etc.. Of course, they don't have the latest OS version, but that's not determined by RAM anyway.........eligibility for these updates is based on the model and year only.
And ten years before that the base RAM specs were 256 MB with the Powerbook G4 being upgradable to 2 GB.
So base stats were 256 MB, 512 MB, 1 GB, 2 GB, 4 GB, 8 GB, 8 GB again, 8 GB again...
Since about 2000 RAM has become increasingly affordable and it doubled every two years on average between 2003 and 2013, then it simply stopped at 8 GB and Apple decided to keep the base stats artificially low so that users are compelled to buy new machines or pay a premium for what should be a relatively inexpensive upgrade for most other computers.
So base stats were 256 MB, 512 MB, 1 GB, 2 GB, 4 GB, 8 GB, 8 GB again, 8 GB again...
Since about 2000 RAM has become increasingly affordable and it doubled every two years on average between 2003 and 2013, then it simply stopped at 8 GB and Apple decided to keep the base stats artificially low so that users are compelled to buy new machines or pay a premium for what should be a relatively inexpensive upgrade for most other computers.
But here it’s not just buy a new Mac. Consumers don’t know. My friend who I haven’t spoken with in a year just sent me a link to a MacBook Air she was going to buy she was upgrading to 1TB as she knew she needed that but leaving it at 8GB. I told her to upgrade the RAM to 16GB, and I felt like I did the job Apple should have done to begin with. She had her prior MacBook since the 2lb MacBook came out in 2015. So she used it about eight years. It has 8GB of RAM in it base. Now, she’s buying a MacBook Air that will be limited by the RAM. That will be the constraint or bottleneck at some point. Maybe not now but some point it will be, and you’re 100% right Apple has been on this 8GB of RAM for so long as for smart consumers it means an immediate upgrade to 16GB of RAM where AAPL profits $196 more! The problem is people trust Apple and AAPL has made so many of these 8GB Macs that will be obsolete due to the RAM. They will not be able to function for ten years due to the RAM constraint. That’s why this is absurd and we all know that Apple’s BS about the environment is all marketing.
Someone made a thread about AAPL should just put 16GB of RAM in every Mac, it would cost them maybe $3.50 more. But it would mean that four to six years down the road when the bottleneck for the user has become so bad they could pay $200 and upgrade it to 16GB of RAM that would unlock the extra 8GB. This is something Tesla does. I would be for it, as it would at least mean a few years down the road that MacBook isn’t thrown in a dumpster. But that’s just the thing, Apple wants consumers to think that way. Oh after five years you need a new Mac. I have had an Apple Store employee ask me to buy a new iPhone when I had the current generation iPhone. I am like what are you talking about. I read later this was happening to others and Apple stopped the practice. But every time I am in an Apple Store, I hear some “Genius” telling the person they need to pay $1300 for this or they need to buy a new device. For all those things I never hear 8GB isn’t enough RAM. The user may understand that 256GB isn’t enough storage for their family videos, but they don’t know about RAM. And that’s a problem we will be sing the repercussions of for many years. Tim Cook has done AAPL wrong here. I think this will comeback to haunt AAPL as it made all of these Macs with a constraint and forced obsolescence built right in so future AAPL has some ability to sell new Macs.
Just like Apple limited the RAM in iPhone for years and people actually noticed which forced AAPL to start upgrading the RAM. I mean most users did’t know why their iPhone crashed. Apple had the logs and could go through them and see the RAM limitations were costing their users problems.
Anyways, great observation that Tim has said no we will stick with 8GB so only those knowledgeable about Macs will pay for upgrades and the rest will be buying more Macs sooner than they would. It’s a win-win situation for AAPL and Tim’s $100m annual stock grant.
If only the RAM and SSD were still socketed and user upgradeable
Or
If only Apple didn’t overprice the heck out of their upgrades
A very frustrating situation right now
Or
If only Apple didn’t overprice the heck out of their upgrades
A very frustrating situation right now
If the 512 GB would have 16 GB memory, that starts to be awfully tempting. I really hate how Apple cripples the RAM and storage.
Maybe you shouldn't buy an 8GB MBA, but it all depends on what you do with your computer, which is precisely the point of the video.
Strategy does seem to be at least lightly backfiring on the whole, I agree.
No it's what you should plan of your computer 5+ years from now. It's not upgradable, remember? You have to order a computer that will meet your needs for until you intend to replace it.
Please cite when in the video the computers are using 2028 OS and software.
Last edited:
That's ridiculous.
If you are an everyday typical user that runs MS Office, Mail, Safari, and other common apps, you will be fine with a base MBA in 5 years. There are 10 y.o. 4GB MBAs doing this stuff now without a hitch on old intel processors. MS is not going to suddenly jump from 4GB to 16GB system requirement. They want to sell their software to the largest possible user base. Furthermore, RAM will not impact eligibility for future OS updates.....that's determined by model and year.
I have been buying base MacBooks for years for myself and family and never had a problem or been forced into replacement because of specs. When I replace, it is almost always because of features I want, but don't absolutely need: battery life, Touch ID, better FaceTime camera, Retina display, etc..
If you are an everyday typical user that runs MS Office, Mail, Safari, and other common apps, you will be fine with a base MBA in 5 years. There are 10 y.o. 4GB MBAs doing this stuff now without a hitch on old intel processors. MS is not going to suddenly jump from 4GB to 16GB system requirement. They want to sell their software to the largest possible user base. Furthermore, RAM will not impact eligibility for future OS updates.....that's determined by model and year.
I have been buying base MacBooks for years for myself and family and never had a problem or been forced into replacement because of specs. When I replace, it is almost always because of features I want, but don't absolutely need: battery life, Touch ID, better FaceTime camera, Retina display, etc..
Agree 100%. I've used Apple laptops for the last 18 years starting with a PowerBook G4 and RAM has never been the reason for obsolescence.
I still have my 12” PB G4 which I upgraded to 2GB ram, I think. Also have my 2011 MBA 11” which only has 4GB but was manageable. Battery expanded though, need to get it replaced because I love the size of the system but have been putting it off. It was fine for some light browsing, Excel and word processing.
Still not competitive with refirb MacBook pros
They need to bring something new to the table for their price points
Mid 2019 Apple MacBook Pro with 2.3 GHz Intel Core i9 (15 inch, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD) Space Gray (Renewed)
The space gray mid 2019 Apple 15.4" MacBook Pro with Touch Bar has been upgraded with a 9th Generation Intel Core eight-core processor. This laptop still features True Tone display technology that automatically adjusts white balance to match the color temperature of the surround light, and the Ap...
www.amazon.com
They need to bring something new to the table for their price points
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Once again I'm bringing this up because the 'Apple 8GB = PC 16 GB' is absolutely a myth. The question is entirely what you plan to do with your machine and this aren't the days where Apple software specs were lower, explaining why a comparatively lower-spected Apple was still faster. When Apple switched away from Power PC processors all the software was mostly on par with intel PC's so the specs are pretty much the same whether you're using an Apple or PC.
Anyone claiming that having 8 GB for web browsing and other basic tasks allows Apple to create a budget computer are absolutely wrong. There are no 'budget' Apple machines, there are only Apple's with stunted specs on very cheap components like RAM and Storage. The cost to Apple for these is very small, and yet these are what allow them dictate huge markups... because you can't go back later and upgrade later.
I have to say they mastered their business model to make the most profit. But as a consumer I cannot justify paying their outrageous prices.
If you feel that way, you shouldn’t buy Apple products. Just as a note, all businesses strive to master their business model to maximize profit. This might seem objectionable……but, that’s what businesses do.
On the other hand, I am perfectly satisfied with my base M2 MBA, and feel it is an excellent value. I have been buying base models for 15 years going back to the white polyethylene MacBooks for my kids‘ laptop program. We never had a bad experience, so I see no reason to change my buying strategy.
BTW - Here is a fun video about using a base 2GB 2010 MBA in 2023