Why didn't you get the 8GB version then? The only difference with slotted vs. upgradeable RAM is that you need to plan beforehand. It seems to me that you did not.
I am an IT manager of an university department. We own about 60 or so computers, most of them Macs. In the last 3 years, I didn't run into a single case where upgrading a computer or tinkering with it in any way would make economical sense. Sure, you need to plan ahead a bit. Don't get a 4GB machine if you know that it won't be good enough for the tasks you need to do. My laptop has 16GB DDR3 stock — which is an absolute maximum what that CPU can take with two RAM slots, so upgradeability would not change anything, and a 512GB SSD — more storage than I'd need in the next 3 years. Btw, we do own those 4GB Mac Minis (and I bought two more the day before yesterday) for administrative work, student research stations and as a backup open directory/database server replica — and guess what — nobody complains about performance, because they are more then adequate to the task at hand.
No offense - but the only thing I can think of when I hear/read someone like this is:"The guy needs desperately a cost-controller!"
In fact, you defend a policy no responsible for budget would, should and could defend…
Just only as for RAM, loss of flexibility, loss of instant and easy repair in place within some minutes is catastrophic.
And just to add this: I experienced failing RAM in my MBP and was happy to solve the problem rapidly because it was exchangeable.
Everyone knows that waiting for upgrading RAM means saving a lot of money because you buy later and at much lower prices for the same quality - and you don´t waste lifespan of forecast-purchased RAM you need in REAL LIFE perhaps some years later on… and so on and so on…
No offense, but to be honest I doubt a little bit that you are really someone who is responsible for the IT-budget.
Maybe you live in a paradise without cost-controlling or with not-so-much-knowing cost-controllers - or your university has still the policy "Cost no issue" ….
And: students at university are not a cost-factor since they are NOT PAYED as every person WORKING in an enterprise… some students will even be happy that they got a perfect excuse to drink a pine or take a coffee somewhere instead of doing research with the NOW non-functional computer…

…. but a boss of an enterprise will "not be amused" about hours of payed work time because a little problem takes more time to be solved because of uselessly soldered/glued interiors...
And just to clarify: I am not talking about your decision for apple, I am nothing but talking about your irritating defense for customer-slavery by soldered/glued parts that should be FOR SURE be instantly exchangeable in an well-organized IT-department….
BTW: A friend of mine is responsible for a REALLY big IT-department of an US-enterprise in Europe ….he was really amused...
[doublepost=1458917428][/doublepost]
Well, increase in Mac sales is a fact.
It is interesting that you take sales numbers as a quality benchmark…


Other people take sales numbers more for a MARKETING BENCHMARK.. and Marketing is in fact the only thing where apple is still unapproached world-class leader…
If this sales-nu,mbers approach was correct, Microsoft Software has been every time 10-20 times better/more inventive/stable/... than apple software has been and still would be top… do you think so?

VHS would have been better than Betamax or Video2000 (The order as for quality was just the other way round).
and Ford would have been always better than BMW, Mercedes and Porsche….
And a big Mac would always have been lightyears better than a meal in a three-star-restaurant…
bon appétit