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.
The real reason for no 32gb option
- Thread starter slughead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Number of SKUs is certainly one of the factors but IMHO it's not even close to the top 3 factors
One reason the SKUs is not a big deal ? Thy could have offered the 32GB option in one or two top configs, thus increasing SKUs by approx 10-15%
The number of SKUs, however, played a bigger role in not having black or rose gold as options. That would increase SKUs by 100%
Honestly, how many users would actually use 32GB? I have 16GB in my mid-2012 rMBP. I'm just a normal user, not a real power user. I don't do video editing or gaming or other intensive workloads. Just office stuff, standard apps, word processing, and the like. I got 16GB because I'm a techie and I have to have the latest and greatest, and that was the most RAM I could get back then. But I've never been able to use all of it. I might get to half of it, and I don't know the internals of OSX well enough to understand how the system itself might use RAM for caching or page swapping and so on.
The point is that I can't come close to using the 16GB I have, so I have a hard time understanding why anyone would need twice that. I suppose there are a very few power users at the high end would might. But not the typical users. So from an Apple perspective, they have to address the mainstream, and not really the fringe at the outside boundary. Just like anything else, Apple made a business decision, which does support almost everyone who would buy a MBP, I think. It's kind of like why they don't offer a 17-inch MB any more. There aren't enough people who would buy one to justify offering one.
The point is that I can't come close to using the 16GB I have, so I have a hard time understanding why anyone would need twice that. I suppose there are a very few power users at the high end would might. But not the typical users. So from an Apple perspective, they have to address the mainstream, and not really the fringe at the outside boundary. Just like anything else, Apple made a business decision, which does support almost everyone who would buy a MBP, I think. It's kind of like why they don't offer a 17-inch MB any more. There aren't enough people who would buy one to justify offering one.
IF only there was some way that SKU management could be made easier. Like some sort of super capable machine that would be able to take all of those manual SKU records and provide some sort of automation.
If I came up with something like that I'd call it a "computer" with a "database"
If I came up with something like that I'd call it a "computer" with a "database"
edit: combinations, not permutations
The problem is a little more complicated than simply producing the same board with more memory soldered, and has nothing to do with SKU management or tracking. What we are seeing is what happens when engineering reality meets Business 101.
A 32GB BTO option would require Apple to either:
- Produce a completely different logic board layout just for 32GB, OR
- Move all models to DDR4
The 2nd choice would side-step the supply-chain problem, but would probably lead to unacceptable battery life in the 8GB and 16GB models, even if 32GB users were to accept lower battery life. Remember, Intel chips do not yet support LPDDR4.
The interaction between Intel's supported memory types vs. Apple's design choices for thin & light, combined with logistics constraints leads to a 32GB option not being financially viable. There simply aren't enough potential 32GB buyers to make sense for Apple to live with either compromise discussed above. This is why Apple chose a 3rd compromise, to not provide a 32GB model.
Last edited:
It's refreshing to see at least a few people who know about LPDDR3 trade-off and Skylake's max support of 16GB of LPDDR3.
Certain competitors have both LPDDR3 option for 16GB and DDR4 for 32GB, at a cost of slight battery life decrease and more complicated logistics.
I'd prefer Apple to give us an option, but I didn't expect them to change their strategy regarding component choices
Certain competitors have both LPDDR3 option for 16GB and DDR4 for 32GB, at a cost of slight battery life decrease and more complicated logistics.
I'd prefer Apple to give us an option, but I didn't expect them to change their strategy regarding component choices
Had Apple made the memory and SSD removable, the number of logic board configurations would decrease by 83% (from what's currently available).
Adding a 32GB memory configuration wouldn't add even a single logic board configuration.
Of cause Apple wouldn't do that because of greed.
Apple don't want you to be able to upgrade on your own: planned obsolescence at it's finest.
Adding a 32GB memory configuration wouldn't add even a single logic board configuration.
Of cause Apple wouldn't do that because of greed.
Apple don't want you to be able to upgrade on your own: planned obsolescence at it's finest.
Last edited:
I see it like this;
1). No 32GB option = people complain
2). Yes 32GB option = majority complain about the $£€ silly upgrade cost
Reality). Most people probably don't need it for anything more than "future proofing" but since we don't really know what the future will bring and in a market where software to hardware optimisation is coming on leaps and bounds the majority will most likely not need it for some time (if ever) and will upgrade systems before it becomes a real impact on their workflow.
I don't think the combination of SKU's was the main reason for not seeing 32GB though, other hardware limitations are the cause.
XIII
1). No 32GB option = people complain
2). Yes 32GB option = majority complain about the $£€ silly upgrade cost
Reality). Most people probably don't need it for anything more than "future proofing" but since we don't really know what the future will bring and in a market where software to hardware optimisation is coming on leaps and bounds the majority will most likely not need it for some time (if ever) and will upgrade systems before it becomes a real impact on their workflow.
I don't think the combination of SKU's was the main reason for not seeing 32GB though, other hardware limitations are the cause.
XIII
This is incorrect. Even if Apple returned to traditional SO-DIMM memory, the 32 GB option would require a completely different board because LPDDR3 and DDR4 are not pin-compatible.
Linus realized that they messed up the video comparison but decided not to do anything about it. Rather they just made a form post explaining it. In their post the explain:
The reason why the MacBook pro uses DDR3 is for the Low Power modules. There are no Low Power DDR4 modules, yet. If you're using LPDDR3, the CPU memory controller limits the system to 16GB. It's as simple as that.
Agreed. After all how many are actually using more than 640KB or RAM?
[doublepost=1479593727][/doublepost]
T, FTFY.
The same excuse has been made over and over again.
Both LPDDR3 and DDR4 are 1.2V.
Quick, off to Wikipedia before someone questions the depth of your electrical knowledge.
Despite the same voltage, LPDDR3 has much lower standby power consumption (to maintain memory contents)
So the Macbook pro can sleep using less power. Yes that was clearly the complaint of most pros (even though the smaller battery means at load it'll be shorter duration and most are not getting APple's claimed battery life).
Don't worry, the battery is glued in there too just for good measure.