Now that Macs have Apple silicon, do you think they are fairly priced?

[throAU]

From my experience, upgrading the M chip from a “binned” version to a “full fat” is the least effective way of spending more money on an Apple Silicon MAC. There are gains, but the value to gain ratio is far worse than with storage or RAM.

Agreed with that.

I didn't look at the recent spec when making the above comment but tbh:

For non pro/home user

• 16 GB RAM = fine, probably for 3-5 years
• 256 GB Storage = cramped
• 512 GB Storage = probably fine for most
• 1 TB+ Storage = have some wiggle room to do things like transfer a bunch of content without screwing with external drives, install some games, etc.

For most, CPU is irrelevant (all M series are now fast) and GPU is "fast" unless you're gaming or running local LLMs, in which case... buy a console or be prepared to open your wallet for higher end pro/max GPUs.

I've got a full-fat max, but it was mandatory to get the RAM (that i "need" for work stuff)

 

[throAU]

You don't have to run Windows. Linux is perfectly viable and doesn't try to sell you cloud storage or music subscriptions either. Especially in these days where most people are doing little beyond running a browser.

I'm running linux myself (have done on/off since 1995) but for most people cross shopping a mac they likely want some user friendly apps for things like photos, videos, etc.

Linux isn't there yet.

 

[theluggage]

No question, and with Recall, and seeing advertisements in the OS, its a complete turn off for me. I don't hate Windows, it does some things better then macOS, and conversely macOS does some things better then windows.

Under all the encrudification Windows 11 is a solid OS under which large numbers of people manage to get their work done. Personally, if I switched to PC hardware I'd seriously consider using Linux for everything I need to do - but that's not going to be an option for people who need specific software. In the meantime, we just have to trust in Apple that they won't lumber future MacOS versions with too much crud.

16gb RAM and 512 Gb storage is very usable outside of performance heavy use-cases, and less users have performance-heavy use cases than marketing and Apple influencer / reviewer community projects.

Except the base level is still 256GB and an insane $200 for the upgrade to 512GB.

They only increased the base RAM to 16GB a year or so back - a welcome but belated improvement which does make the RAM a bit more sensible. Prior to that some people were defending 8GB as 'good enough for light use' - yet (as many others were predicting) Apple were able to bump the base RAM without changing the base prices.

...and even keeping a bunch of browser tabs open can use up a lot of RAM.

...but the root of the problem is that it's quite difficult to anticipate how much RAM and storage you're going to need for the next 2-3 years - and, in 2025, 32GB/1TB on any other platform would either be standard or an affordable bit of bet-hedging. The idea that cutting corners on RAM and SSD saves you $600 is an artifice created by Apple.

Anyway, rather than going down the "Hi, I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" rabbit hole - the standard RAM and storage on Macs really hasn't kept pace with the capacity of the processor to process data or the size/resolution of media files (even if you're just storing and playing them back) that they handle.

Since 2014, the base storage on a MBA has only doubled - in that period the number of processor cores has increased x5, the GeekBench is almost x10, all of which increase the amount of data throughput that needs buffering in RAM and saving to SSD.

In terms of actual data size we've gone from "full HD" video to "4k UHD" as the norm - 4x as many pixels, often accompanied by more bits-per-pixel, higher frame rates or less agressive compression. Even if you're a consumer - web pages that, in 2014, might have had a few Flash animations and 100ppi images now have half-a-dozen fairly high quality video ads and 200ppi images (all of which need caching in RAM). Chances are that any images in your boring "personal productivity" documents are now 4x the size as they were before. Your iPhone camera has gone from 8 to 48 megapixels... even for your holiday snaps.

Apple's processors, webcams and display support have certainly kept up with this trend - but their base RAM and SSD specs have lagged way behind and the price-per-GB of their upgrades has barely changed - and not because the RAM/SSD industry haven't kept up. Sure, Apple - like every PC maker offering BTO upgrades - have always been a bit gougey, but over the last decade or so they've been getting exponentially gougey-er.

256GB can quickly become constrained, and while there's options like icloud, onedrive, external drives the fact remains apple sells base model computers with drives that are too small.

Yup.
It's also worth noting that you really, really don't want your system drive to get anywhere close to 100% full or things will start to grind to a halt - and a big chunk of that 256GB will be eaten by the system, temporary files and applications. While its one thing to rely on external storage for, say, a Mac Mini (although it defeats the object of having such a small computer) it's ridiculous on a laptop.

 

[Bodhitree]

Did you ever consider going for a PowerComputer (Mac Clone) back in the day?

Now there’s a question I haven’t thought of in a while 😁 I do remember looking at it at the time, but I didn’t feel the Mac clones were as reliable. It was probably more a perception of mine than a real incompatibility… but soon after that I ended up taking a job in the computer games industry, for which I needed a PC, and I ended up selling the Mac second hand.

I think Apple since then have focussed really well on what made the company great. Maximise the market share, compete in premium hardware market segments on price and quality, and provide value in the software. As Jobs correctly spotted when he made his return, Apple didn’t need the clones, they were a drag on its market share as long as Apple made the best quality hardware.

 

[East India Company]

The so called 'Apple Tax', to me, has always been the price of using a Mac. But, I believe it's a fair trade considering their longevity and flexibility.

And, I generally don't pay the tax anyway. Someone else does that for me. I'm about 16+ years behind the current model at the moment and once the older M series Macs start coming in to my price range (around $250 or less) then that'll close quite a bit.

But it's the longevity that enabled me to use PowerPC Macs from 2001 to 2020, and then go fully Intel in 2020. The flexibility means that the 2009 MacPro I'm typing this on is running Sonoma (via OCLP).

If the M-series Macs continue with this, then I should have a good run while everyone else is on the next chip.

I admire your ability to prolong the lives of these venerable machines. I still switch on an old Mac but only as a pass time.
However you will have to be very careful with Apple silicon machines. They might be much less durable. Why? Because of the non upgradable ram and SSD, combined with the fact that up to this year, most Mac shipped with below acceptable amount of ram (8gb) and storage (256gb). This is a major problème because with this low amount of ram, the os will cache the ram on the SSD many times over because the ram will be full (it’s called swapping). Then because the SSD has a low amount of storage, on many machine it is quite full, thus the swapping occurs on a very small portion of the SSD cells. These cells have a definite life time defined in write cycles. Once they die, the block they are in is banned, reducing the available storage on the SSD and exacerbating he problem.
At some point the SSD will critically fail and once it fails, that’s it. Black screen, nothing happens because the boot loader is on a portion of the SSD. The machine is dead and the complete main board must be changed (if supported this cost almost as much as a new computer).
There you have it. Apple silicon are throwable computers despite Apple stating that they are so green. I wish you best of luck trying to rejuvenate life into them.

 

[East India Company]

There’s another thing we lost during the transition from Intel to AS: ports (ie. Internal IO bandwidth).
Before you could hook up 3 screens with even the least powered laptop (with lid open). We had to wait until the M4 to get something finally similar. Also remember how the M1-M3 Mac minis had much less ports than the same Intel Mac mini they replaced.
So from that point of view they were not a good deal.

 

[eyoungren]

I admire your ability to prolong the lives of these venerable machines. I still switch on an old Mac but only as a pass time.
However you will have to be very careful with Apple silicon machines. They might be much less durable. Why? Because of the non upgradable ram and SSD, combined with the fact that up to this year, most Mac shipped with below acceptable amount of ram (8gb) and storage (256gb). This is a major problème because with this low amount of ram, the os will cache the ram on the SSD many times over because the ram will be full (it’s called swapping). Then because the SSD has a low amount of storage, on many machine it is quite full, thus the swapping occurs on a very small portion of the SSD cells. These cells have a definite life time defined in write cycles. Once they die, the block they are in is banned, reducing the available storage on the SSD and exacerbating he problem.
At some point the SSD will critically fail and once it fails, that’s it. Black screen, nothing happens because the boot loader is on a portion of the SSD. The machine is dead and the complete main board must be changed (if supported this cost almost as much as a new computer).
There you have it. Apple silicon are throwable computers despite Apple stating that they are so green. I wish you best of luck trying to rejuvenate life into them.

I am in the fortunate position of having newer Macs in my home. These are work issued. In 2019, it was a 2015 MBP and right now it's a 2023 M2 MBP. So, I'm using work-issued newer model Macs every day for my job. The experience shows me what I want to avoid and what I need to do. And the best part is that if these machines break, it isn't me that is fixing them. That is the domain of my employer.

Then too, by the time I end up with my first M-series Mac, my hope is that those models that survived and are available for purchase are the good ones. By the time I got a Quad G5 in 2017, most of the Quads with the bad liquid cooling systems had long ago died. So, that is my similar hope here. Because my Quad G5 worked just fine the the three years I used it.

And lastly, the other advantage is that by the time I get there, everything 'bad' that may have happened, has most likely been recorded on someone's website. Whether that's a forum, or a blogger, it's probably documented somewhere by that point. I've solved old problems with my Intels because by the time I got there, it had long been solved and documented.

I'll see when I get there I guess.

 

[eyoungren]

There’s another thing we lost during the transition from Intel to AS: ports (ie. Internal IO bandwidth).
Before you could hook up 3 screens with even the least powered laptop (with lid open). We had to wait until the M4 to get something finally similar. Also remember how the M1-M3 Mac minis had much less ports than the same Intel Mac mini they replaced.
So from that point of view they were not a good deal.

In my previous post I mentioned problems that were solved and then documented. This is exactly that. Apple gimped the 13" MBP M2 so you can only use the LCD and one additional display. This problem was solved by somebody who discovered that docks with DisplayLink would allow the 13" to drive two displays while in clamshell mode.

And DisplayLink devices can be daisy chained, allowing for additional monitors beyond. I've done it.

I know all this, because it is how I solved the exact same problem with my work issued 13" MBP M2. I got the cables I needed and the dock and my work issued M2 drives two 30" Cinema Displays in clamshell mode. Because someone documented it a year or more before I even got that Mac.

 

[TechnoMonk]

If you have actual use-cases that need it, then get it. Get what you need. But once you’re doing that, it’s much harder to came the Mac you’re buying is “reasonably priced”.

Ultimately, if you could do all thing things you need to do on a Mac on an iPad Pro ( I’m not saying you would want to, but if you functionally could), then it’s worth double-checking to see if you might be spending more than you need to on a new Mac.

Reasonably priced depend on why the machine is bought. If you are browsing or doing basic stuff sitting at star bucks, base model will do just fine. If you need more RAM, like in my case 128 GB, there is nothing close to what Apple offers in MBP. It does more than my Linux workstation that cost me 12 K. The 5 K MBP paid itself in a week.

 

[TechnoMonk]

You don't have to run Windows. Linux is perfectly viable and doesn't try to sell you cloud storage or music subscriptions either. Especially in these days where most people are doing little beyond running a browser.

A baseline Mac Mini with 1 tier up on RAM and storage is almost twice the starting price at $1000 to get 512GB and 24GB RAM. You can get a Beelink or Minisforum mini PC with 32GB RAM, 1TB storage for half that with good enough CPU/GPU performance for most tasks (e.g., https://www.amazon.com/Beelink-PCle4-0-Computer-Support-Display/dp/B0DKF15XQJ).

How many people that have a Mac actually need one because there is some software that only runs on Mac? I'd wager it's a tiny minority.

I run a Linux workstation but managing security on a Linux is a nightmare even with pro subscription.

 

[theluggage]

If you are browsing or doing basic stuff sitting at star bucks, base model will do just fine.

...so might a £500 PC laptop or a £300 Chromebook. You'll often end up running the same "personal productivity" software, especially in the age of the cloud and web apps.

If you're going to apply the "good enough for many" test you need to apply it across the board, not just to RAM and SSD specs. If you're going to pay over the odds for a "premium" laptop then why not expect premium specs that give you a bit of headroom?

I think a lot of this value for money perception comes down to whether you see (say) a base MacBook Air as a £999 Mac or a £999 personal computer. The first case feels like the base Mac is an "entry level" system - but it the wider perspective you're already paying a huge premium over something that would "just do the job".

 

[maflynn]

...so might a £500 PC laptop or a £300 Chromebook.
...
If you're going to apply the "good enough for many" test

This might have been the mentality that Google had when trying to market the chromebook. Except for schools, its largely a failed product line, so much so, google has killed off chromeos.

I think a lot of this value for money perception comes down to whether you see (say) a base MacBook Air as a £999 Mac or a £999 personal computer.

My take is that a 999 MBA is viewed as a premium product, where as a 999 PC is considered cheap and not good for anything.

 

[theluggage]

For most, CPU is irrelevant (all M series are now fast) and GPU is "fast" unless you're gaming or running local LLMs, in which case... buy a console or be prepared to open your wallet for higher end pro/max GPUs.

...which I think is part of Apple's problem - the M4 is capable of so much that they're having to knobble it with limited RAM and SSD to make an "entry level" (by Mac standards) system. You end up with something that looks like a Ferrari with a 2 gallon gas tank.

 

[theluggage]

This might have been the mentality that Google had when trying to market the chromebook. Except for schools, its largely a failed product line, so much so, google has killed off chromeos.

Debateable: [Note: EDITED! Wrong URL]

Chromebook Market Size, Share, Trends & Growth Report, 2033

The global Chromebook market is projected to reach USD 8.28 bn by 2033, growing at a CAGR of 3.42% from 2025 to 2033. North America led the market in 2024.

www.marketdataforecast.com

The education market isn't something to be scoffed at (and they've really spoiled Apple's plans to dominate education with the iPad there).

Also, as I understand it, Google are merging ChromeOS with Android, not discontinuing ChromeBooks. I think the main change is that the idea of it being 100% browser-based has gone away, after it gained the ability to run Android and Linux apps.

My take is that a 999 MBA is viewed as a premium product, where as a 999 PC is considered cheap and not good for anything.

Except PC laptops start at about £$200, and "better" ones can be had for 400-600. Not saying those are comparable with Macs - but they'll fetch your email and update your Facebook. Apple doesn't offer anything in that price range other than iPads.

 

[maflynn]

The education market isn't something to be scoffed at

Agreed, and the education market can be a gateway to allow greater adoption by consumers. That's one reason Apple got really popular in the 1980s, as many classrooms had the apple II.

With that said, I don't know one person in my town, or in my circle of knowledge that likes the chromebook. My kids, teachers, administrators, and parents all hate them. This isn't a gateway market sector where using them in schools will translate into consumers sales.

Even with the education sector, chromebooks are largely a dud. Hell even Google has stopped making chromebooks, others like HP, Toshiba and to a large extend Dell have abandoned chromebooks. Google is also killing the Steam so there's no way to natively run games (other then mobile/android games) and that's yet another sign that its largely failed as an alternative to windows and macos.

Also, as I understand it, Google are merging ChromeOS with Android, not discontinuing ChromeBooks.

Yes, the hardware is going to run android, but make no mistake it is google killing a product line. It was supposed to be a new OS to compete against windows and macos. All Roads Lead to Chrome OS. Now they've largely given up on this, and instead is going to run android their phone and tablet operating system.

after it gained the ability to run Android and Linux apps.

ChromeOS already has the abiltiy to run linux apps. Its not a feature that I'd say would appeal to the masses, or students. Google has promised that when Android replaces chromeos, they'll not lose that ability. Its not that with Android being run on chromebooks, they now have that features - it already existed. Props to Google for not killing that, though.

Debateable:
https://www.currys.co.uk/computing/laptops/laptops/windows-laptops

I offered my opinion based on what I see and people I know, others may feel differently.

 

[Happy_John]

...so might a £500 PC laptop or a £300 Chromebook. You'll often end up running the same "personal productivity" software, especially in the age of the cloud and web apps.

If you're going to apply the "good enough for many" test you need to apply it across the board, not just to RAM and SSD specs. If you're going to pay over the odds for a "premium" laptop then why not expect premium specs that give you a bit of headroom?

I think a lot of this value for money perception comes down to whether you see (say) a base MacBook Air as a £999 Mac or a £999 personal computer. The first case feels like the base Mac is an "entry level" system - but it the wider perspective you're already paying a huge premium over something that would "just do the job".

Build quality and materials quality will be the issue here. A £500 PC laptop or a £300 Chromebook is going to be made from a lot of plastic and very thin metal. 300 pounds is not better value than 999 pounds if the 300 pound laptop breaks far sooner than a MBA.

A cheaper laptop or a Chromebook tends to have a lot of flex if you twist it between your hands or type enthutistaically on the keyboard. A 13" MBA doesn't.

But yes, the consumer tech industry these days does not focus on what "just does the job". Consumers are generally pushed to spend more than they need to on something that is possibly more than they need.

The whole point of a "luxury" is that it is not the best value. And Apple do position their machines, even the entry level, as "luxury" / "premium" items.

 

[theluggage]

I offered my opinion based on what I see and people I know, others may feel differently.

FWIW I pasted the wrong link in the bit you quoted. Shouyld have been:

Chromebook Market Size, Share, Trends & Growth Report, 2033

The global Chromebook market is projected to reach USD 8.28 bn by 2033, growing at a CAGR of 3.42% from 2025 to 2033. North America led the market in 2024.

www.marketdataforecast.com

It was supposed to be a new OS to compete against windows and macos. All Roads Lead to Chrome OS. Now they've largely given up on this, and instead is going to run android their phone and tablet operating system.

Well, things change in 16 years. 2009 was still early years for Android which was very much a phone OS still playing catch-up with iPhone, the modern iPad-like tablet didn't really exist (there were sort-of tablets, they ran Windows). We weren't at the stage where phones were delivering PC-levels of computing power. Google Docs had just come out of Beta... Early years for the App Store, too.

In 2025, Android and ChromeOS are doing the same job - running Chrome without needing Windows. We have "advanced web applications" - which was really ChromeOS's special sauce - as a standard feature in most web browsers. I'm not sure what the case is for them remaining as separate operating systems. ChromeBook users are barely going to notice that they are running Android rather than ChromeOS (especially considering how customisable the Android UI is).

 

[theluggage]

300 pounds is not better value than 999 pounds if the 300 pound laptop breaks far sooner than a MBA.

...not better value when it costs 1/3 of the price? Sure, you're unlikely to be passing a 300 dollarpound laptop down to your grandkids, but that's not even a guarantee with a 999 MacBook.

Just because something feels cheap and plasticky doesn't necessarily mean it is going to break that much sooner. Problem is, that 999 Mac also has some longevity-breaking features - like a soldered-in SSD (it may be "solid state" but it's the kind of solid state that still wears out) and a keyboard that can only be replaced along with the whole top case. In those respects it's - at best - no better than the cheaper PC, although some of those will at least have M.2 SSDs.

 

[Happy_John]

...not better value when it costs 1/3 of the price? Sure, you're unlikely to be passing a 300 dollarpound laptop down to your grandkids, but that's not even a guarantee with a 999 MacBook.

Just because something feels cheap and plasticky doesn't necessarily mean it is going to break that much sooner. Problem is, that 999 Mac also has some longevity-breaking features - like a soldered-in SSD (it may be "solid state" but it's the kind of solid state that still wears out) and a keyboard that can only be replaced along with the whole top case. In those respects it's - at best - no better than the cheaper PC, although some of those will at least have M.2 SSDs.

It's Vimes' "boots theory".

Buy a very cheap pair of boots, they'll fall apart after a year.
Buy an expensive pair of boots, at ten times the price of the cheap boots, and they'll last for 20 years.

The expensive pair of boots is better value in the long-term than the cheap pair.

 

[maflynn]

The expensive pair of boots is better value in the long-term than the cheap pair.

Here's the google overview that expresses the issue more accurately then I can.

The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory is a socioeconomic concept, popularized by Terry Pratchett, explaining that the poor are often forced to buy cheap, low-quality goods that are more expensive in the long run due to frequent replacement, while the wealthy can afford to buy high-quality items that last, effectively "spending less money" overall. This creates a cycle of poverty, as the poor cannot afford the initial investment in a durable, superior product and remain trapped by the continuous expense of low-quality alternatives.

 

[Happy_John]

Here's the google overview that expresses the issue more accurately then I can.

Yep. It's a lot more insidious when it comes to essentials (or items that people consider to be essentials) - if you can afford to either buy in bulk and so invest more to get abetter price, or buy higher quality and half a longer lifespan, your cost of living actually is lower than for someone who can't, so, absurdly, the cost of living is lower for wealthier people than it is for less wealthy people.

When I was young, corner-shops used to sell single cigarettes to people who couldn't afford, or didn't want to, pay for a whole pack of cigarettes. But of course the shops sold each cigarette at a price that was more than a twentieth of the cost of an unopened packet. So smoking cost more for someone who couldn't afford to buy a whole packet. The poor pay more.

Buying on credit will cost you far more than paying immediately with a lump sum.

Tech does mirror this sometimes - cheap cables and chargers don't last long. Buying higher quality cable will probably see you money in the long run.

And I do think this applies to "budget laptops" and Chromebooks.

 

[pshufd]

If you can live with the base models, then yes, particularly with the current level of discounting that we're seeing. The M4 mini at Microcenter ($450), M4 MacBook Air 13 at Amazon ($800) and M4 MacBook Air 15 at Amazon ($1,000), base Mac Studio that has been $1,700 at Microcenter but is $1,800 right now, and the M4 Mac Studio that has upgraded RAM, SSD and cores for $400 off two weeks ago. It is now $270 off but $400 was a great deal.

Where Apple gets you is RAM and SSD. If you need or want more, then you pay through the nose for it.

I bought a Lenovo Yoga 2-in-1 10th gen Aura 14 with 32 GB of RAM and 1 TB SSD. MSRP was about $2k. I found stackable coupons to get it down to $1.5K. That's normal in the Windows world. There was another model at Best Buy that I looked at that was $1,800 MSRP and they had a sale on it for $1,250 or $550 off.

So na M4 MacBook Air 13 with 1 TB SSD and 32 GB is $1,800 on Apple's website. Maybe you can get $100 - $150 discount at a store but the discounts seem more common on base or standard models and harder to come by for configurations that people really want. I think that 32 GB of RAM and 1 TB SSD is desirable for a lot of people though not really necessary. I've had 512 GB for a long time and only went to 1 TB on my M1 Pro MacBook Pro because I didn't want as much hassle in keeping the MacBook tidy and I don't want to carry an external SSD. 1 TB has proven to be comfortable, particularly using virtual machines.

So Apple is in the ballpark of premium Windows laptops and you get in-store service. Lunar Lake laptops have soldered RAM so there's no difference there but many Windows laptops still have dual DIMM slots so that you can increase RAM after purchase. Many still have one or more NVMe slots as well so you have far more flexibility on storage. My current laptop has four-channel NVMe so near 7K MBps read/write speeds which I don't think that you get with the lower level MacBook Airs. You do get those speeds on the MacBook Pros though.

Some Windows laptops have PCIe Gen 5 NVMe support so you can get about 14,900 MBps read/write with the appropriate NVMe SSD. Apple doesn't have anything like this in the M4 Macs. But those Windows laptops are usually in the $4K price range.

Apple Silicon beats everyone else in CPU performance - single-core, multicore, and efficiency. So the Windows PCs have to compete on other factors. It may be discrete GPUs, screen size, screen resolution, form-factor, price, 2-in-1 functionality, etc.

I think that Apple, if you're good with base models, represent an excellent value. There are specific applications, though, where there are good reasons to buy Windows PCs.

 

[theluggage]

It's Vimes' "boots theory".

Absolutely, although righting the economic injustices of the world might not need to start with premium laptops.

Also, not all $500 boots are built to last a lifetime: you need to be a savvy shopper to avoid the $500 boots that are actually just $10 boots with a $490 logo stamped on them (that's probably the Dibbler 'sell the sizzle not the sausage' theory )...

 

[Happy_John]

Absolutely, although righting the economic injustices of the world might not need to start with premium laptops.

Also, not all $500 boots are built to last a lifetime: you need to be a savvy shopper to avoid the $500 boots that are actually just $10 boots with a $490 logo stamped on them (that's probably the Dibbler 'sell the sizzle not the sausage' theory )...

Yes. If we're talking about if Macs are currently "fairly priced" as the title says, life-span and resale value are things that do need to be factored in.

MacBook Pros 2016 - 2019 turned out to not be "fairly priced", looking at it this way.

As for "selling the size", yep, it's very real in consumer tech and other areas. It's why many Apple buyers end up overspeccing what they buy. Or, putting it in PC gamer terms, RGB lighting doesn't make your computer faster or more powerful.

Go to a cake shop, and there will be a lot of cakes that look delicious. But it's your tastebuds and nostrils that "taste", not your eyes.

Work out what you really need to buy, don't get distracted by blinking lights, and shop around.

 

[Lioness~]

Fairly priced?

I'll know that when they don't do what I expect of my Mac's.
When I know how many years they had really high value to me?
How many years they had a bit lower value, but still did the work I expect of them?
Finally, when they start to annoy me etc.