Even 16GB of RAM is acting deceptive on my M2 Mac Mini ? Perplexed !!

[picpicmac]

You want Apple to keep 8/256 as the default because you're afraid of a price bump and 'you don't want everybody to suffer a price bump?'

You're just intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote.

For any product line, a company has to decide a pricing structure.

Apple chooses one method of structuring their prices that make for price ladder with regular intervals. There is likely some deeply researched reasoning for this having to do with psychology in marketing.

At any given generation of products, Apple have chosen to make the base level specs appropriate for those whose demands are not great on a computing machine.

What you want to do is force Apple to over-spec those base machines, because of reasons about which I can only speculate on your part.

 

[lovehateapple]

My dad is having the same issue, except his mini has 24GB of RAM. His computer routinely says it's using more than 21GB. Very weird. He never got high memory usage warnings on his intel mini with 16GB. Now he gets them all the time.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Unless your Mac is experiencing signs of slowdown (for which you would have to draw realistic before/after comparisons), has memory pressure in the 'red' in Activity Monitor, or displays a dialog box saying that it actually is 'out of memory', you're fine.

Many users over-think memory usage in Activity Monitor. It's not simply a case of 'Open an app > allocate memory > done' - the way that macOS utilises memory is dynamic by nature.

Put simply, if there free memory available, then certain apps will take advantage of it and allocate that space as a form of 'reservation', even if by your own opinion you don't believe the app needs it.

The greatest example of this is of course Safari. You may only have a few tabs open and they're not particularly media-rich, however you previous browsing history will be cached in the system memory, so that the next time you visit that page, it will be virtually instantaneous.

But the important thing to remember about all this is that, as mentioned earlier, the memory is dynamic. If another app is opened and requires its own memory allocation, then macOS will 'compress' the unused memory in Safari to free-up space. This process is happening constantly when your Mac is being used.

As a brief example, I'm a photographer and mainly use Lightroom and Photoshop. I have a 16gb M1 Pro MBP, and for my needs this just about does the trick - Lightroom will only occasionally take my memory pressure into orange. No problem, the system is doing what it's designed to do. Likewise, even when I'm not using those apps and I'm performing light productivity, the system will use 12-13gb of RAM easily, and again that's fine because everything works much faster when data is cached and ready to go.

 

[SAdProZ]

You're just intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote.

For any product line, a company has to decide a pricing structure.

Apple chooses one method of structuring their prices that make for price ladder with regular intervals. There is likely some deeply researched reasoning for this having to do with psychology in marketing.

At any given generation of products, Apple have chosen to make the base level specs appropriate for those whose demands are not great on a computing machine.

What you want to do is force Apple to over-spec those base machines, because of reasons about which I can only speculate on your part.

You've confused the entire argument.

Someone said, 'I refuse to buy another MacBook Air until 16/512 comes with the base model' and your response was, "But many people want a computer for rather simple tasks. Why burden them with your requirements?"

I then asked you what the "burden" was.

Your response was about pricing: "If you want Apple to put more expensive NAND and SDRAM chips in the base machines, then Apple will raise the price of the base machines. Which is why forcing people to over-buy for their needs is only going to end up costing those people more money."

So your response was in essence claiming that the original comment was burdening people with more spec and a higher price.

And this entire time all I wanted you to understand was that the person was saying they are going to hold off until 16/512 catches up to the price. The price will stay relatively the same over time. I even showed you precedent and you acknowledged that yes, the price mostly stays the same while specs do get upgraded in due time.

So no, nobody is forcing Apple to "over-spec" the base machines, Apple will naturally increase specs to catch up to technology as well as to induce new sales. And the person will wait until that time.

That is all.

Your claim that they are burdening anyone is unfounded.

 

[picpicmac]

Your claim that they are burdening anyone is unfounded.

The pretending-to-be-protest posts are not just people checking in and giving status reports to the world.

Such posts are intended to make assertions about the nature of pricing a product, often with implied accusations against whatever company is offering the product.

 

[SAdProZ]

The pretending-to-be-protest posts are not just people checking in and giving status reports to the world.

Such posts are intended to make assertions about the nature of pricing a product, often with implied accusations against whatever company is offering the product.

Duh!

The guy is saying that 8/256 is too little, that upgrade prices are too high, and so their course of action is to wait for value-per-dollar to increase before buying their next Mac. Obviously that’s an implied assertion against Apple’s pricing.

You claiming they are burdening us is wrong. Period. Stop. Their protest does not burden us.

 

[picpicmac]

Their protest does not burden us.

Because Apple ignores it.

If Apple did not ignore it then people who have very simple needs for computers will end up paying more than they needed.

 

[SAdProZ]

Because Apple ignores it.

If Apple did not ignore it then people who have very simple needs for computers will end up paying more than they needed.

You still don't get it. That person is simply waiting until the specs get upgraded to 16/512 on default models at the same price. If Apple reacted, according to this persons needs, Apple would need to upgrade specs at the same price in order to satisfy this person's protest.

So there is no burden. It only benefits us all.

 

[SAdProZ]

@Chuckeee whats your deal? You're passive aggressive. Speak up.

I honestly don't understand how you both can fabricate this false logic that if Apple increased the default spec to 16/512 AT THE SAME PRICE of $1099... that this would be a burden on Mac users.

Apple will eventually get there. It may be 8 years from now, but eventually the default spec will be 16/512 (or more realistically, 12/512, since Apple is moving to 2 x 6 GB DRAM). Are you and picpicmac going to complain if Apple increases RAM and storage capacity at the same price? Is increasing value-per-dollar bad for you?

 

[svenmany]

@Chuckeee whats your deal? You're passive aggressive. Speak up.

I honestly don't understand how you both can fabricate this false logic that if Apple increased the default spec to 16/512 AT THE SAME PRICE of $1099... that this would be a burden on Mac users.

Apple will eventually get there. It may be 8 years from now, but eventually the default spec will be 16/512 (or more realistically, 12/512, since Apple is moving to 2 x 6 GB DRAM). Are you and picpicmac going to complain if Apple increases RAM and storage capacity at the same price? Is increasing value-per-dollar bad for you?

Somehow there was a disconnect. @picpicmac seemed to have missed your point. I agree with your point. Apple always seems to keep the base model at the same price point. If they offered that base model to a "base" user with more realistic "base" specs, then that would greatly benefit that customer.

Unfortunately that's not how capitalism works. The company just runs through scenarios and picks the one which maximizes profits. People do complain because they need to vent. I respect that need and sympathize. If that turns out listening to that is a burden to someone, then they should just leave the thread.

 

[Chuckeee]

@Chuckeee whats your deal? You're passive aggressive. Speak up.

I honestly don't understand how you both can fabricate this false logic that if Apple increased the default spec to 16/512 AT THE SAME PRICE of $1099... that this would be a burden on Mac users.

Apple will eventually get there. It may be 8 years from now, but eventually the default spec will be 16/512 (or more realistically, 12/512, since Apple is moving to 2 x 6 GB DRAM). Are you and picpicmac going to complain if Apple increases RAM and storage capacity at the same price? Is increasing value-per-dollar bad for you?

Because it’s been repeated over and over and over again. Apple doesn’t do it because it’s all about Apple greed or profits (if you want to make it sound nicer). Apple makes more money with BTO upgrades when they keep the base configuration to a bare minimum and it has nothing to do with the cost of the BOM. It has nothing to do with what’s best for the users. Once again, it’s all about profits. Apple is a business. It’s not a benevolence society.

So I just hold my nose and buy it. Really that your only choice.

 

[Chuckeee]

People do complain because they need to vent. I respect that need and sympathize. If that turns out listening to that is a burden to someone, then they should just leave the thread.

There are numerous threads entitled 8 GB is not enough. If someone needs to vent, those are the appropriate locations to do it. I’m just tired of people making the same complaint and taking over every single thread that talks about RAM.

This thread was supposed to be about why someone was concerned that 16 GB was insufficient

 

[SAdProZ]

Because it’s been repeated over and over and over again. Apple doesn’t do it because it’s all about Apple greed or profits (if you want to make it sound nicer). Apple makes more money with BTO upgrades when they keep the base configuration to a bare minimum and it has nothing to do with the cost of the BOM. It has nothing to do with what’s best for the users. Once again, it’s all about profits. Apple is a business. It’s not a benevolence society.

So I just hold my nose and buy it. Really that your only choice.

I agree 100% with you.

What is holding Apple back isn't cost, its that

• Apple don't want their profit margins to dip from people no longer pressing +$200 on RAM and +$200 on storage during checkout. (Apple: "That's free money!")
• Not to mention build-to-order means models are directly purchased from Apple instead of retail where Apple loses 7% to retail partner discount...
• and when that happens, buyers sign up for Apple's credit programs (ie. Apple Card); and so because its credit and not cash, people add accessories and cross-sell products ("Might as well throw in an iPhone or iPad or Apple TV since its on credit").

So yes, Apple isn't going to go from 8/256 → 16/512 overnight. Agreed.

But that isn't our argument.

Our argument is that Rookbird¥ said "I refuse to buy another Apple computer until they start coming with 16GB of ram and a 500GB SSD drive," and picpicmac interpreted that as a burden to us Mac users.

I argue its not a burden because that obviously implies *at the same MSRP (price)* which likely wont happen for many more years.

So if we're not paying extra for 16/512, and the only detriment is that Rookbird¥ is going to need to hold their next MacBook purchase for a few more years, how are we (the Mac user) burdened by Rookbird¥?

 

[svenmany]

I’m just tired of people making the same complaint and taking over every single thread that talks about RAM.

Sounds like you're venting.

 

[SAdProZ]

Unfortunately that's not how capitalism works.

Thats literally how capitalism works. What I'm claiming is that eventually Apple must increase base specs.

Here is Apple's progress from 4/128 → 8/256

• MacBook Air (13-inch, Early 2015) — started with 4 GB RAM and 128 GB storage for $999 USD
• MacBook Air (13-inch, 2017) — started with 8 GB RAM and 128 GB storage for $999 USD
• MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2020) — started with 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage for $999 USD

So the only claim I'm making is on this timeline (1a) RAM will be upgraded and (1b) storage will be upgraded—all at the same or similar price point—eventually.

How is anything I'm claiming (1a and 1b) an antithesis to how capitalism works?

Are we still using a Powerbook 100 with only 2 MB of RAM and a floppy drive for storage? No, specs have increased and prices have actually decreased (when accounting for inflation).

A Powerbook 100 costs $5,400 in today's dollars; yet a MacBook Pro offers so much more value-per-dollar at $1,999 and a MacBook Air at $999.

In fact, that 4/128 MacBook Air that cost $999 in 2015 would cost $1,091 in 2020 dollars; yet Apple made the default 8/256 in 2020 at no raised price. That proves my point.

[My only footnote is that I think Apple will be raising RAM to 12 GB due to adopting 6 GB DRAM chips]

 

[Chuckeee]

Sounds like you're venting.

Valid point I was venting about venting

 

[svenmany]

Thats literally how capitalism works. What I'm claiming is that eventually Apple must increase base specs.

Here is Apple's progress from 4/128 → 8/256

• MacBook Air (13-inch, Early 2015) — started with 4 GB RAM and 128 GB storage for $999 USD
• MacBook Air (13-inch, 2017) — started with 8 GB RAM and 128 GB storage for $999 USD
• MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2020) — started with 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage for $999 USD

So the only claim I'm making is on this timeline (1a) RAM will be upgraded and (1b) storage will be upgraded—all at the same or similar price point—eventually.

How is anything I'm claiming (1a and 1b) an antithesis to how capitalism works?

Are we still using a Powerbook 100 with only 2 MB of RAM and a floppy drive for storage? No, specs have increased and prices have actually decreased (when accounting for inflation).

A Powerbook 100 costs $5,400 in today's dollars; yet a MacBook Pro offers so much more value-per-dollar at $1,999 and a MacBook Air at $999.

In fact, that 4/128 MacBook Air that cost $999 in 2015 would cost $1,091 in 2020 dollars; yet Apple made the default 8/256 in 2020 at no raised price. That proves my point.

[My only footnote is that I think Apple will be raising RAM to 12 GB due to adopting 6 GB DRAM chips]

You really would have to look at Apple's numbers and their expected profit calculations. I'm sure they've concluded that their current lineup, for now, maximizes profit.

 

[SAdProZ]

You really would have to look at Apple's numbers and their expected profit calculations. I'm sure they've concluded that their current lineup, for now, maximizes profit.

Why would I have to look at anything to know that in due time, whether its 5 years or 10 years from now, Apple will move on from 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage?

Its going to happen eventually.

Are you making the argument that, "no, Apple will remain at 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage for the next 100 years?"

 

[svenmany]

Why would I have to look at anything to know that in due time, whether its 5 years or 10 years from now, Apple will move on from 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage?

Its going to happen eventually.

Are you making the argument that, "no, Apple will remain at 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage for the next 100 years?"

It's a bit amazing to me that you're getting heated when I was trying to agree with you. I'll bow out.

 

[SAdProZ]

It's a bit amazing to me that you're getting heated when I was trying to agree with you. I'll bow out.

I wasn’t heated. I’m humbly and sincerely asking why I would need to look at anything to know that technology progresses?

Seriously, I’m not mad nor purposefully being rude. We’re just debating a fine point.

Since it seems you’re in agreement, we’ll move on. Cheers.

 

[picpicmac]

AT THE SAME PRICE

@picpicmac seemed to have missed your point.

No, I did not.

There is no "AT THE SAME PRICE" given Apple today, in February 2024. It's not a real thing. It is possible in some future year that Apple will sell 16GB RAM base models at the price they sell 8GB base models today, but I am skeptical of that because inflation is going to drive the entire industry.

Someone might as well claim that Apple should give an M3 Ultra SoC "at the same price" because, well, technology magically improves thing.

It's all a mass of false thinking.

And the pile, and it's a huge pile, of people complaining about 8GB of RAM in base models is a symptom of magical thinking.

Companies price products to find their spot in a market. The cost of parts is part of the equation, and while Apple as a buyer is important to Samsung and Micron those two companies are not going to magically sell their higher spec SDRAMs at the same price as their lower spec SDRAMs.

 

[SAdProZ]

No, I did not.

There is no "AT THE SAME PRICE" given Apple today, in February 2024. It's not a real thing. It is possible in some future year that Apple will sell 16GB RAM base models at the price they sell 8GB base models today, but I am skeptical of that because inflation is going to drive the entire industry.

Someone might as well claim that Apple should give an M3 Ultra SoC "at the same price" because, well, technology magically improves thing.

It's all a mass of false thinking.

And the pile, and it's a huge pile, of people complaining about 8GB of RAM in base models is a symptom of magical thinking.

Companies price products to find their spot in a market. The cost of parts is part of the equation, and while Apple as a buyer is important to Samsung and Micron those two companies are not going to magically sell their higher spec SDRAMs at the same price as their lower spec SDRAMs.

A decade ago, an SSD used to cost $7.44 per GB. Now it costs 11¢ per GB.

Does your current Mac laptop have a measly 2 MB RAM, a floppy drive for storage, and cost over $5,000 like it did back in 1991. No! Because Law of Innovation and Moore's Law means that as technology progresses, prices drop.

Regarding the M3 Ultra SoC:

• If we double the scores of the M3 Max, we can estimate the upcoming M3 Ultra SoC will have a Geekbench score of 3,000 single core and 42,000 multi core.
• The MacBook Air will reach that single core capability of 3,000 in one month time
• The MacBook Air will reach that multi core capability of 42,000 in 7 years or 7 chip-generations (with a single core speed approaching 8,000)

Since 2015, Apple doubled RAM, doubled storage, and lowered the MSRP when accounting for inflation.

 

[Chuckeee]

A decade ago, an SSD used to cost $7.44 per GB. Now it costs 11¢ per GB.

Does your current Mac laptop have a measly 2 MB RAM, a floppy drive for storage, and cost over $5,000 like it did back in 1991. No! Because Law of Innovation and Moore's Law means that as technology progresses, prices drop.

Regarding the M3 Ultra SoC:

• If we double the scores of the M3 Max, we can estimate the upcoming M3 Ultra SoC will have a Geekbench score of 3,000 single core and 42,000 multi core.
• The MacBook Air will reach that single core capability of 3,000 in one month time
• The MacBook Air will reach that multi core capability of 42,000 in 7 years or 7 chip-generations (with a single core speed approaching 8,000)

Since 2015, Apple doubled RAM, doubled storage, and lowered the MSRP when accounting for inflation.

And my father tracked my height and weight from when I was born until I was 18 months old. Based on extrapolation of those trends, he determined by the time I was 21 I would be over 20 feet tall and I would weigh over 800 pounds.

 

[SAdProZ]

And my father tracked my height and weight from when I was born until I was 18 months old. Based on extrapolation of those trends, he determined by the time I was 21 I would be over 20 feet tall and I would weigh over 800 pounds.

Oh, because humans are only capable of 25 years of skeletal growth that means that Apple has frozen RAM at 8 GB.

Amazing.

Absolutely amazing.

You win. I give up. The arguments just don’t make sense. Let’s revisit this when Apple increases spec.

 

[picpicmac]

A decade ago, an SSD used to cost $7.44 per GB. Now it costs 11¢ per GB.

Early in a technology the price of a device can radically change as products are first developed and deployed.

Mature industries though, using mature technology, do not see such.