That doesn't mean anything. Competitor's machines may require more/different specs for specific functions plus they use a different OS. Besides if you've been a Mac user over the years you should know Apple has never been a spec whore and doesn't give into the masses playing the spec one-up game like the PC world just to grab consumers's attention, especially when Apple's products/OS are generally very efficient at handling ram.
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.
All iPads Will the next iPad Air 2 finally have 2 GB of memory?
- Thread starter Investor27
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That doesn't mean anything. Competitor's machines may require more/different specs for specific functions plus they use a different OS. Besides if you've been a Mac user over the years you should know Apple has never been a spec whore and doesn't give into the masses playing the spec one-up game like the PC world just to grab consumers's attention, especially when Apple's products/OS are generally very efficient at handling ram.
Using DDR4 memory would decrease power usage, but this alone doesn't mean Apple is waiting for this in order to increase the RAM. When Apple put 1GB RAM with the A6, Apple stayed with DDR2 RAM. When Apple stayed with 1GB RAM in the A7, they used DDR3 RAM.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
An upgrade in ram by 1GB will not require deep pockets. It's dirt cheap.
Why desire it? Page reloads in Safari tabs is one great nuisance "as is". Multitasking apps with too little available RAM somewhat defeats the purpose. It would be like rolling out the "thinnest iPhone ever" at paper thin by not including a battery at all
(did I just predict the iPhone 11?).
Personally, I hope they at least double the RAM. But then again, I'm also in the camp of making a sim card-like slot for SD or micro cards so that those who want flash storage beyond 128GB could add what they need when they need it. My iMac has a slot. My Macbook has a slot. So Apple knows how to do it and even embraces the technology in other Apple hardware. Other than the profit motive, why not add that same, optional flexibility to iPad?
One example where it is needed: go to any club sporting event and you'll see lots of parents shooting video of their kids playing on iDevices. I shoot video too on a dedicated camcorder. HD video eats up a lot of storage space. If you pay attention, inevitably those using Apple iDevices will either run out of space for their video or have to arbitrarily choose when to shoot and when not to shoot. The latter sounds fine but it means almost certainly missing some big play moments because the "camera" was off in that moment.
I use a dedicated camcorder. I'm also shooting HD video just like I would if I used my own iPad. However, when my video storage gets full, I can simply stick in a new card. I don't miss a moment so I end up with every big play in the final result.
Occasionally, little Johnny or Joanie will have the game of their lives. If their parent is depending on the remaining free space in that iDevice, they may miss a chance to capture it forever. I've seen too many people trying to frantically delete apps and other data from their iPad because they need the space to capture more video. Why???
Similarly, go on a LONG vacation. In the times between sites, someone might want to watch movies. Unless you're made of money, streaming them is NOT the answer (though AT&T, Verizon, etc wants it to be). Many of us now download the HD version of the movie via iTunes. That's fairly large files. Sync even a few of them to an iDevice and you'll fill up the free space pretty quickly. Could you store 3 HD movies in your free space right now? 5? 10? 5 or 10 movies is not that much filler if you traveling on a 1-2 week trip.
So what's the answer? Accessories like wifi hard drives work but are another thing to carry along with some heft. How about even 1 64GB MicroSDXC card (about $40) which could hold about 16 HD movies. Spend $80 and have 32 HD movies along in 2 little cards that weigh almost nothing. Wait 6 more months and that extra 128GB will probably cost half the price they do now.
Endless examples like these could follow but hopefully it begins to make the point.
Why desire it? Page reloads in Safari tabs is one great nuisance "as is". Multitasking apps with too little available RAM somewhat defeats the purpose. It would be like rolling out the "thinnest iPhone ever" at paper thin by not including a battery at all
(did I just predict the iPhone 11?).Personally, I hope they at least double the RAM. But then again, I'm also in the camp of making a sim card-like slot for SD or micro cards so that those who want flash storage beyond 128GB could add what they need when they need it. My iMac has a slot. My Macbook has a slot. So Apple knows how to do it and even embraces the technology in other Apple hardware. Other than the profit motive, why not add that same, optional flexibility to iPad?
One example where it is needed: go to any club sporting event and you'll see lots of parents shooting video of their kids playing on iDevices. I shoot video too on a dedicated camcorder. HD video eats up a lot of storage space. If you pay attention, inevitably those using Apple iDevices will either run out of space for their video or have to arbitrarily choose when to shoot and when not to shoot. The latter sounds fine but it means almost certainly missing some big play moments because the "camera" was off in that moment.
I use a dedicated camcorder. I'm also shooting HD video just like I would if I used my own iPad. However, when my video storage gets full, I can simply stick in a new card. I don't miss a moment so I end up with every big play in the final result.
Occasionally, little Johnny or Joanie will have the game of their lives. If their parent is depending on the remaining free space in that iDevice, they may miss a chance to capture it forever. I've seen too many people trying to frantically delete apps and other data from their iPad because they need the space to capture more video. Why???
Similarly, go on a LONG vacation. In the times between sites, someone might want to watch movies. Unless you're made of money, streaming them is NOT the answer (though AT&T, Verizon, etc wants it to be). Many of us now download the HD version of the movie via iTunes. That's fairly large files. Sync even a few of them to an iDevice and you'll fill up the free space pretty quickly. Could you store 3 HD movies in your free space right now? 5? 10? 5 or 10 movies is not that much filler if you traveling on a 1-2 week trip.
So what's the answer? Accessories like wifi hard drives work but are another thing to carry along with some heft. How about even 1 64GB MicroSDXC card (about $40) which could hold about 16 HD movies. Spend $80 and have 32 HD movies along in 2 little cards that weigh almost nothing. Wait 6 more months and that extra 128GB will probably cost half the price they do now.
Endless examples like these could follow but hopefully it begins to make the point.
Last edited:
Can you give us an estimated cost to add one GB of RAM (what do you consider dirt cheap ?).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm not inside of Apple so I can't offer costs with any accuracy. One can look at prices of RAM in computing in general as a kind of approximation speculation. For example: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i:aps,k:2gb ram are retail-priced ram cards priced as low as $17.94 on that page today. 1GB ram modules are about $10, so it implies going from 1GB to 2G costs about $8 more at retail pricing or about 1.8 times more than 1GB (at retail pricing). Anyone have an iFixit estimation of what the 1GB of RAM in iDevices costs? Maybe multiply that by up to 1.8 as a reasonable guess (though that doesn't take into account retail markup, which should make the markup a fair amount less than that).
Yes, I know that kind of RAM is not the same kind in an iDevice. But then again, it also would NOT be retail packaging or retail pricing to add 1GB in iDevice RAM. In those Amazon examples, we would be buying quantity 1 (unit) of that RAM where Apple would be building it into tens-to-hundred-of-millions of units of next-gen iDevices, so the actual cost- whatever it is- would seem likely to be relatively trivial if Apple wanted iDevices to have that added RAM.
While also not a fair calc, Apple seems to think of doubling the flash memory as worth about $100 more. $100/64GB = $1.56 per GB. Again, I know that Flash memory is not RAM memory but how much more could it really be? 3X that $1.56. 5X that $1.56? In hundreds of millions of iDevices via economies of scale costs?
Someone closer to this particular knowledge could probably chime in with a better estimate but I'd be surprised if anyone in the know could rationalize maybe $15 in unit cost increase to add 1GB of additional RAM. On a gut level (which I'll acknowledge could be way off based on my own RAM engineering expertise (lack thereof actually) my guess would be about $5 on the scale of iDevices made).
Maybe the bigger picture idea though is simpler: go anywhere in computing land that offers input in answer to "what's the best way to get more out of your computing hardware?" Inevitably the first or second recommendation is "add more RAM". Instead of trying to rationalize why Apple should stick with 1GB, isn't it worth asking why not 2GB? Why not 4GB? We have a 64-bit CPU now running in 1GB of RAM. Even that seems like a bit of a conflicting view on a technical plane: 64-bit memory addressing for only 1GB of RAM.
Yes, I know that kind of RAM is not the same kind in an iDevice. But then again, it also would NOT be retail packaging or retail pricing to add 1GB in iDevice RAM. In those Amazon examples, we would be buying quantity 1 (unit) of that RAM where Apple would be building it into tens-to-hundred-of-millions of units of next-gen iDevices, so the actual cost- whatever it is- would seem likely to be relatively trivial if Apple wanted iDevices to have that added RAM.
While also not a fair calc, Apple seems to think of doubling the flash memory as worth about $100 more. $100/64GB = $1.56 per GB. Again, I know that Flash memory is not RAM memory but how much more could it really be? 3X that $1.56. 5X that $1.56? In hundreds of millions of iDevices via economies of scale costs?
Someone closer to this particular knowledge could probably chime in with a better estimate but I'd be surprised if anyone in the know could rationalize maybe $15 in unit cost increase to add 1GB of additional RAM. On a gut level (which I'll acknowledge could be way off based on my own RAM engineering expertise (lack thereof actually) my guess would be about $5 on the scale of iDevices made).
Maybe the bigger picture idea though is simpler: go anywhere in computing land that offers input in answer to "what's the best way to get more out of your computing hardware?" Inevitably the first or second recommendation is "add more RAM". Instead of trying to rationalize why Apple should stick with 1GB, isn't it worth asking why not 2GB? Why not 4GB? We have a 64-bit CPU now running in 1GB of RAM. Even that seems like a bit of a conflicting view on a technical plane: 64-bit memory addressing for only 1GB of RAM.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
For apple defenders, the answer is bad apple coding.
For anyone who has used a computer starved for memory while using a browser - the answer is more ram. With a tablet that has no storage swap, the problem is even more severe.
Saying "I can run advanced apps on the air without an issue" is BS as well. You are alotted a certain amount of RAM. If you do not exceed that, you can stuff in as much as you can. And there are some amazing apps out there. But what do you do when the browser has pushed all other possible apps out of memory? You start clearing out tabs. But why would ram improve that? :rolls-eyes:
What is everyone's obsession with how much ram is in the iPad? I really don't care how much is in mine as long as it works properly. I have the new Air and haven't experienced a single problem with performance.
You're making a good point but please answer this. What do you think Apple's engineers, employees and even Tim Cook are using? Do you think they special edition iPads with extra ram just for them? I'm saying this because I'm sure they are using the same ones the hit the retail stores and I'm sure many of them have not only the same needs but most likely even more demanding needs as their customers.
Even if it's only $5.00 more, that's $100 million more in cost to Apple (assuming sales of 20 million). Apple isn't going to put more RAM in their iPad then what they think they need. I'm not saying that the iPad doesn't need more RAM but, in the cost/sales calculation, Apple has determined that 1GB RAM is adequate for the average user. You don't hear RAM gate in the news so Apple is generally correct.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
They're saying the iPhone 6 still has 1GB, these low memory app crashes are crazy. Why not include the stupid extra gig, charge more who cares. Especially if they raise the base price to 300, and theres 1GB...what a joke.
This is a false argument. They could shrink the price in other areas to compensate. What if they shrunk the over-engineered battery by 10% to compensate for the extra RAM.
I would take this tradeoff in a second. I never run out of battery but I'm always short on RAM.
Not arguing about whether or not adding SD slots to iPads are a good idea, but there is one good reason other than profit to leave them out -- they add thickness to the device. It's also another movable part that can be broken. Plus, those people who desperately scramble to delete space off their iOS devices because they run out of space for their videos have obviously not planned ahead. I bet a majority of them will also arrive at their big events without extra memory cards, even if the iPad had slots for them.
The way people here are defining a power user is one who multi-tasks between apps frequently and has many Safari tabs open simultaneously. If you don't do this, 1GB is sufficient.
I don't know. Perhaps, like many here, they don't really use tabs. But what is more likely, is that they are not constructing a post in a web forum, switch to another tab to research, then come back to the original tab that is refreshing to lose all they had typed. Because if they had, they would realize what a crap user experience they have on their hands.
But they can't hear our complaints over the Beep, Beep, Beeping of they trucks backup up to 1 Infinite Loop to unload all the cash.
I wouldn't say this. I'd say the average user is one who doesn't care if another app takes a little longer to load or if a web page takes a second to refresh.
There is BIG hollow area at the top of my iPad Air. They could use that empty space.
Apple spends a lot of time on cost analysis and they determined that the battery life is not over-engineered. In fact, from Apple's standpoint, all the components in the iPad are minimized cost vs operation at the time the iPad is released. When the next generation iPad is released, Apple recalculates the cost vs requirements and they find savings that go towards upgrades in the iPad.
So it is not a false argument. When the iPad first comes out, the cost are minimized for the desired specification. Those cost do change so you are correct in that they can get upgrades in a new design without impacting the cost.
Web pages just aren't that big.
Try this:
- Install and launch Fiddler (or your favorite web debugger) on your desktop
- Clear your browser cache
- Visit 5 or 6 of your favorite sites
- Examine Fiddler to see how much stuff was downloaded.
I just did this for:
- nin.com (just cuz I heard it was a problem site -- indeed it's ~23.5 MB itself)
- macrumors.com
- reddit.com
- yahoo.com
- huffingtonpost.com
- slate.com
- theverge.com
I got a total of about 41 MB.
Hmm... seems pretty likely Safari could hold every single resource downloaded by all of these sites in memory pretty easily, even with *just* 1024 MB RAM.
"Wait a minute," the astute reader might exclaim, "web sites aren't static -- once their javascript is loaded and starts executing, the page gets modified in memory.. you have to save that state, too, to avoif a refresh."
Good point. Let's dig deeper and see if we can analyize this further, shall we?
Here's a breakdown of what was downloaded by type of resouce:
- 27 MB of images (nin.com was over hald of that)
- 5 MB audio (nin.com was almost all of this)
- 4 MB javascript
- 1.7 MB flash
- 1.5 MB html
- 0.6 MB headers
- 0.5 MB css
- 0.5 MB fonts
- ~0.5 MB other
Interesting.
Flash isn't going to load in iOS at all so we can ignore that.
Images and audio are static, so those can be retained in memory as-downloaded. Likewise for headers and fonts.
I'm going to ignore other because it's small.
Now, I realize that images are quite possibly loaded into memory uncompressed, while those download sizes are for compressed images. However, keep in mind, Safari only needs the images in uncompressed form for the ones it is drawing to screen. It would only need to reatain the compressed images for ones that aren't on the current tab (or even for ones that are scrolled far off screen on the current tab.
So now we're looking at about 33.5 MB static resources and 6 MB of more dynamic HTML, Javascript, and CSS content.
The dynamic stuff is presumably needs to stay loaded in meory and probably takes up a lot more bytes parsed and loaded than on the wire. Let's just say 4 times more.
So now we're at 33.5 MB static resources plus 24 MB page state.
Then there's whatever memory the executing code allocates for its own purposes. Now, arbitrary Javascript code can allocate arbitrary amounts of memory. But give the kinds of web pages these are, the Javascript code would have to be pretty horribly written to consume more more than, say the size of everything else combined, or ~ 58 MB. While it's true that if there's some page with a voracious memory leak, it may try to allocate a lot more memory (not sure Safari would allow it), but then, even 2 GB or 4 GB, etc. isn't safe from an out-of-control memory leak.
So:
For seven decent sized sites:
... we're at about 116 MB RAM... or about 11% of 1 GB RAM
to maintain these sites off screen so that switching back to them does not requre a refresh.
I know this analysis isn't irrefutable.
E.g., I pulled that 4 x number regarding loaded page state size vs. download size out of thin air.
But just looking at the size of the numbers involved, RAM is not the first thing I would look at when figuring out how to get Safari to refresh tabs less.
You're providing Apple's perspective. What about the users? Everyone complains about the RAM. No one complains about the battery life. In this example, Apple got it wrong.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Do you not think Apply might ask for $30 more for that upgrade? You know, like doubling flash for $100 more.
Or, do you not think that the shrinking cost of other things in the platform could wash out a $5 cost increase.
And yes, $100 million in addition cost on 20 million units sold. 20 million units sold at- say- $599 = just under $12 Billion. Even if it would cost Apple that $100M, $100M/$12B = less than 1% of what they make in revenues on that 20 million units.
So yes, when you do the math to only show a big number of units times any cost it can look like a WHOLE lot of money. But then you do the same math on- say- average selling price of each unit sold and it can again look like a dirt cheap amount for a big benefit.