I suppose they could go the whole hog and only have RAM upgrades available on the Studio and Pro 🤦‍♂️
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.
These New Macs Are Coming in 2024
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah I found a pic after I posted. Idk about his suggestion of maybe 4x in the Pro SOC though. Apple has the Max if you need more than 36GB RAM.
I do agree... I was being sarcastic about how Apple seem determined to keep everyone's RAM as low as possible, despite the fact that in the coming years the prevalence of AI/LLMs will see RAM demand on our personal devices skyrocket.
I’ll duck and hide after saying this, but there is another reason that Apple was (I think M4 will have minimum 12 GB) holding the line at 8 GB, and that’s to combat what we might call memory-use inflation or bloat, both internal (inside macOS and its APIs) and with software developers who might otherwise become lazy in this regard. In a word, memory efficiency.
Nonetheless, with regard to pricing of memory and storage upgrades to their standard, in-stock configurations, I’ll admit that Apple increasingly seems stuck in the past. They are still using price structures that were developed when the customer had an option of DIY. They seem to think nobody will notice, but something is off. Especially now that the flagship products are on an annual cadence.
The most frustrating thing about it is there is an existing Apple price structure that addresses the problem. Look at the iPhone 15. It’s $100 to double the storage from 128 to 256. It’s $200 to double it again from 256 to 512 (and another $200 to double it again to 1TB in the Pro).
Why not do that for the Mac? The first BTO doubling of either memory or storage is $100, and thereafter it’s $200 (or more once you get into high-end configurations).
Last edited:
I'm still holding out on upgrading my M1 Max MBP until the M6 so I can get 5 years out of it. It's getting hard though, the M3 chips are noticeably faster...
Yup. My only concern is video card. I don’t want to struggle connecting with external monitors, which my 2018 mini and M1 MBP both do.
Even with the redesign, an M4 Pro -equipped Mac Mini is definitely on my want list! I will probably order one some time in late winter or early spring 2025. Also with only Thunderbolt/USB-C ports and HDMI, at least I'll be able to use my Thunderbolt 3 dock with it like I do when using my M1 MacBook Air in clamshell mode.
I agree that the current design of the M-series SoCs are at odds with an “expandable” system, but if it is worth Apple’s time, they could create a completely custom high-end SoC for use in the Mac Pro and in data centers for their own use. Such a chip has been long rumored.
USB-C for power is intriguing but after having looked into it a bit seems unlikely. According to an Apple support document, the current M2 Mini Pro can use up to 100W when going all out. That was the power delivery limit until PD 3.1 which raised it to 240W. I’ve actually only seen 90W Power Delivery on USB-C monitors. Apple’s own Studio Display only supports 96W.
Nice idea as you could mount the Mini on the rear of a USB-C w/PD monitor and use a single cable to connect. Basically the ideal iMac replacement. You can swap out the Mini when you need more compute and keep your monitor for as long as it lasts.
Here’s the link to the Apple support doc: https://support.apple.com/en-us/103253
Last edited:
IMO baseline RAM is not all that relevant. What is most important is how much RAM is optionally available, since under AI, Apple's UMA, etc. RAM has very substantive impact on real-world operation. Raising baseline RAM levels simply raises the lowest end of available Apple hardware, IMO not particularly a good thing to do.
The many folks [here] who concern themselves with base RAM are really just wishing for more computer for less cost, which is IMO a waste of bandwidth, because we all wish for more computer for less cost. Personally I could care less about what Apple chooses as base RAM. More important [to me] is how much Apple charges for adding RAM, currently about 2x what it should be.
Nothing greedy about keeping the lowest end low. IMO Apple should keep making the low end [for granny with her email, etc.] as low and cheap as possible. Also I seriously doubt if such RAM-configuring is loss-leader pricing; Apple probably makes money on the lowest-configured Macs.
We agree that Apple's charges for adding RAM seem to be too high by about double.
Apple made 96 GB then 128 GB RAM available on laptops for years now. IMO suggesting that "Apple seem determined to keep everyone's RAM as low as possible" is flat wrong.
Some buyers choosing to under-equip their new Mac purchases with lesser RAM is unfortunate and IMO poor purchase decision making. But do not blame Apple.
Sure blame Apple for choosing to build and sell at the high end. Buyers should simply buy elsewhere if they do not like Apple's high prices. Buyers should not, however, under-equip their Macs with sub-optimal RAM in an effort to spend less.
Nice, I gave up waiting for an updated Studio and just got a refurb 14" M3 Max MB Pro. Very nice little laptop I must say, powerful and more then enough for me. Saved a few hundred going refurb, kept it under the 3 grand limit.
The fans I don't think even come in with my general use, they do for gaming and even then they aren't that loud. Apples ARM computer processors are pretty impressive.
The fans I don't think even come in with my general use, they do for gaming and even then they aren't that loud. Apples ARM computer processors are pretty impressive.
Would like to see higher refresh rates for the iMac display. 60hz is sooo 2010.
I did the same, I looked at the 15" Air and honestly thought its design was excellent, but its limit on RAM and available processor made me choose the MacBook Pro instead. I hope to keep my new computer for several years too.
Only using a base M4 might be their way of solving the power consumption issue...
RAM is so cheap, it isn't about wanting something we aren't paying for. For the price Apple paid for 8GB a few years ago we could have at least 32GB now... In the UK you can buy a new Windows laptop with 8GB RAM for less than the price of adding an additional 8GB RAM to a Mac. Mac buyers are paying plenty, just getting short changed. There's a clear an obvious distinction.
Where did you get your 2x number from? An arbitrary decision that they should merely charge us about ~10x what they pay?
I feel they should go back to releasing Macs before the fall to create hype and boost sales - then they're in place well before Christmas. However, maybe they don't really care anymore as the Mac is one of the least revenue generating products they sell.
This is the truth! I love the idea of having a shiny powerful desktop Mac that's just always at the ready. But the MacBook Pro just makes too much sense. The power has gotten so good and also having that flexibility to take it home with me from the studio is just too good.
But every time they reveal a new desktop Mac I want it...
Hopefully soon. The Studio is the real Mac Pro, not that vanity object they sell to the Saudi royal family (I assume because I can't imagine anyone else paying that much for that little).
The #1 priority in Apple's lineup is the iPhone, everything else plays second fiddle.
I did that for about a decade, until I needed more power than I could reasonably get in a laptop. Since last year I've been back on a desktop. It got to the point where I would need to pay twice as much for similar capabilities despite rarely/never needing the machine to be portable.
There's a lot of Apple RAM apologists here. The cost of increasing RAM to Apple is a few dollars. The benefit to the customers and the environment through longevity is surely worth a few less nipple tweeks for Apple executives.