Macs would be more "value for money" if Apple doubled RAM & SSD across the board

[Finbarr Cnaipe]

Just my 2 cents for Macs:

Standard Configs should be baselined:

RAM / Storage
16GB / 1TB
32GB / 2TB
64GB / 4TB
128GB / 8TB
256GB / 16TB (someday soon).

For me, Sweet spot SHOULD be 64GB / 4TB for a Macbook/Macbook Pro, and if they ever build another 27in or 32in iMac, it will be 128GB/8TB. (My current 2020 Intel i9 iMac 27in is already 128GB/4TB...)

Not buying into the whole "8GB" on Apple Silicon is like 16GB or more on Intel silicon. And there is Zero argument for current Storage configs. It is a joke for anybody to buy any computer these days with any storage less than 1TB.

I just got a 13th Gen Intel i9 HP Envy 16in laptop (w/nVidia 4060) 2560x1440 resolution + 64GB RAM and 2x 4TB storage for less than $1800....new. It rocks. That being said, I still prefer macOS and Apple eco-system.... Just can't justify the cost of new Apple HW....I'll remain on Intel Macs for the foreseeable future.... (imac 27in, 15in 2018 MBP, 2020 16in MBP, and 2020 13in MBP, and 2018 (bought in 2021) MacMini i7. None are less than 32TB RAM or less than 2TB Storage....)

Apple is not selling "progressive" HW at competitive prices....they are regressive IMHO, since RAM and Storage needs are only going to increase ...like forever.... I suspect they are just attempting to reset the expectational clock. I really am unsure what Steve would've thought about this discussion....

I'm sick and tired of the "progressive" push to move everything to the "cloud" and change everything into "subscription" services...even when there is absolutely no real technical reason to do so (and in fact the dependency makes the tech LESS progressive). Not interested and never will be.

But feel free to disagree. Personally, I prefer actual capitalism, innovation, and property over mediocre and lowest-common-denominator Central Planning products & "services". But if your goal is to make the population dependent upon a central authority for their information and communication, I guess it makes sense in that case...

 

[Digitalguy]

Unfortunately, upgradeable RAM wouldn't be good for Apple's mobile devices, because it would mean they couldn't use low-powered LPDDR RAM, since such RAM needs to be soldered. [It's technically possible to have slotted LPDDR, but probably not a good idea, which is why everyone that sells devices with LPDDR solders it.]

OTOH, there's no reason they couldn't have upgradeable storage in all their devices, especially their desktops. But specifying that it has to be upgradeable would do the consumer no good unless Apple were also legally obligated to make the NAND chips non-proprietary. For instance, the storage in the Mac Pro is upgradeable, but you need to buy special chips from Apple, and they cost more than upgrading it at the time of sale.

I was talking about their Macs, not iPads or iPhones, nobody expects upgradable RAM on mobile devices (I don't know of any Arm chips with user upgradable RAM).
However, when I say upgradable I mean by the user, that is non-proprietary chips (proprietary chips are another Apple way to improve their bottom line at the expense of consumers)
As for storage on mobile devices again, I don't think that anyone expects upgradable storage on iPhones and iPads, but the obligation to have a Microsd card would be more than welcome (but again would hit Apple bottom line)

 

[theorist9]

I was talking about their Macs, not iPads or iPhones, nobody expects upgradable RAM on mobile devices (I don't know of any Arm chips with user upgradable RAM).
However, when I say upgradable I mean by the user, that is non-proprietary chips (proprietary chips are another Apple way to improve their bottom line at the expense of consumers)
As for storage on mobile devices again, I don't think that anyone expects upgradable storage on iPhones and iPads, but the obligation to have a Microsd card would be more than welcome (but again would hit Apple bottom line)

I was referring to Macs as well. Since the thread was about Macs, by mobile devices I meant their laptops. I've edited my post to avoid further confusion. Anyways, upgradeable RAM would be a problem for their laptops, because that means they couldn't use LPDDR, which has to be soldered.

Samsung did just introduce LPCAMM, but that's a new technology with its own compromises.

Modular LPDDR Memory Becomes A Reality: Samsung Introduces LPCAMM Memory Modules

www.anandtech.com

 

[kiranmk2]

The main problem I see for Apple by sticking to 8/256 on Macs is that it is such a short term view. They are getting the benefit of extra profits from outrageous RAM/SDD upgrade pricing but storing up issues for the future:

1. Apple must ensure that MacOS runs with 8 GB for at least another 4-5 years to ensure that 8 GB M3 models have a good level of OS support. If in 3 years it just becomes impossible (e.g. 8 GB machines have yellow memory pressure straight after booting) then they will either have to cut support for 8 GB models (annoying a large proportion of customers) or use heavier swapping (which kicks the can down the road until SSDs start failing which, again annoys a large proportion of customers). In both cases, these customers may reconsider buying another Mac.
2. Someone who buys an 8 GB Mac today (and hence gives Apple the profit now) may become annoyed that their $1599 laptop starts slowing down in 1-2 years as apps/browsers use more RAM. At this point, new Mac owners may simply decide that they will just go with a cheaper Windows laptop next time (and thus becomes an issue for Apple 2-3 years down the line)

Essentially, decisions like this are trading short term revenue/profit for longer term reputation. Perhaps Tim is going to retire in a few years and won't be around to deal with the consequences of failing income.

The discussion has become heated between Apple fanboys and people who want something for nothing. As ever, finding a middle ground seems to be the best way. I was very surprised that the M3 models didn't start at 12 GB RAM with the M3 Pro models starting at 24 GB. Adding 2 GB to the M3 Pro models and nothing to the M3 models just seemed like an extra insult. Also, Apple is trying to get into gaming and PC GPUs with 8GB RAM (on top of system RAM) are starting to struggle with modern games so a RAM increase seemed like a no-brainer.

 

[Digitalguy]

The main problem I see for Apple by sticking to 8/256 on Macs is that it is such a short term view. They are getting the benefit of extra profits from outrageous RAM/SDD upgrade pricing but storing up issues for the future:

1. Apple must ensure that MacOS runs with 8 GB for at least another 4-5 years to ensure that 8 GB M3 models have a good level of OS support. If in 3 years it just becomes impossible (e.g. 8 GB machines have yellow memory pressure straight after booting) then they will either have to cut support for 8 GB models (annoying a large proportion of customers) or use heavier swapping (which kicks the can down the road until SSDs start failing which, again annoys a large proportion of customers). In both cases, these customers may reconsider buying another Mac.
2. Someone who buys an 8 GB Mac today (and hence gives Apple the profit now) may become annoyed that their $1599 laptop starts slowing down in 1-2 years as apps/browsers use more RAM. At this point, new Mac owners may simply decide that they will just go with a cheaper Windows laptop next time (and thus becomes an issue for Apple 2-3 years down the line)

Essentially, decisions like this are trading short term revenue/profit for longer term reputation. Perhaps Tim is going to retire in a few years and won't be around to deal with the consequences of failing income.

The discussion has become heated between Apple fanboys and people who want something for nothing. As ever, finding a middle ground seems to be the best way. I was very surprised that the M3 models didn't start at 12 GB RAM with the M3 Pro models starting at 24 GB. Adding 2 GB to the M3 Pro models and nothing to the M3 models just seemed like an extra insult. Also, Apple is trying to get into gaming and PC GPUs with 8GB RAM (on top of system RAM) are starting to struggle with modern games so a RAM increase seemed like a no-brainer.

5 years from now Apple won't care in the sligtest if some people bare annoyed by 8GB of RAM just because they went with the base model. If you do very basic stuff and don't open too many tabs 8GB will be fine in 5 or even even 10 years, as some swapping has never killed anyone (other than maybe some SSDs, but that will be very far down the line). I do fine with a 4GB RAM machine if I only do very basic stuff and only use it as a secondary device.
But you spent $1600 / €2050 on that machine! You wanna do everything with it right? Who cares, that's your problem, you should have spend your money more wisely.
Apple hasn't cared when some iPads became almost unusable with updates, due to too little RAM, I don't see them having trouble with that now. 8GB RAM Macbooks will do much better than that.
Are those Macbooks a good value. No, a terrible value IMO at those prices. But again, people will just sell them and hopefully learn the lesson. There will be no war against Apple, no meaningful hit to their reputation.

 

[Digitalguy]

I was referring to Macs as well. Since the thread was about Macs, by mobile devices I meant their laptops. I've edited my post to avoid further confusion. Anyways, upgradeable RAM would be a problem for their laptops, because that means they couldn't use LPDDR, which has to be soldered.

Samsung did just introduce LPCAMM, but that's a new technology with its own compromises.

Modular LPDDR Memory Becomes A Reality: Samsung Introduces LPCAMM Memory Modules

www.anandtech.com

As I said, ARM chips and upgradable RAM don't work together... So at this point, I don't see any authority imposing an unrealisting obligation on RAM for ARM chips (and therefore not to x86 competitors either). But storage is where Apple makes a ton of money with massively overpriced upgrades and proprietary stuff. And that could be something regulators could consider seriously.

 

[Finbarr Cnaipe]

5 years from now Apple won't care in the sligtest if some people bare annoyed by 8GB of RAM just because they went with the base model. If you do very basic stuff and don't open too many tabs 8GB will be fine in 5 or even even 10 years, as some swapping has never killed anyone (other than maybe some SSDs, but that will be very far down the line). I do fine with a 4GB RAM machine if I only do very basic stuff and only use it as a secondary device.
But you spent $1600 / €2050 on that machine! You wanna do everything with it right? Who cares, that's your problem, you should have spend your money more wisely.
Apple hasn't cared when some iPads became almost unusable with updates, due to too little RAM, I don't see them having trouble with that now. 8GB RAM Macbooks will do much better than that.
Are those Macbooks a good value. No, a terrible value IMO at those prices. But again, people will just sell them and hopefully learn the lesson. There will be no war against Apple, no meaningful hit to their reputation.

If 8GB RAM and/or 128/256GB/512GB Storage is adequate for a current user group, then I would make the suggestion to just get a Tablet/iPad type device instead, or stick with an iPhone/Android Phone. I don't see any reason for a user to need a full computer (Mac or PC) with these limitations.

Which brings to mind another idea/thought. Why not create an optional dock/system for just such a user, and make it a "thing" (i.e., market the crap out of it), so they could add a keyboard, mouse, and monitor to use with their iPhone/Android Phone/tablet to have the "computer" experience in such a case? Then actually innovate and spec the "Computers" for real computer users, instead of focusing the computers for folks who would obviously be just fine sticking with their gated content consumption devices?

 

[theorist9]

As I said, ARM chips and upgradable RAM don't work together... So at this point, I don't see any authority imposing an unrealisting obligation on RAM for ARM chips (and therefore not to x86 competitors either). But storage is where Apple makes a ton of money with massively overpriced upgrades and proprietary stuff. And that could be something regulators could consider seriously.

That's not what you said in the post to which I replied....you we saying you'd be "all in for Apple (and anyone else) being legally obligated to use upgradable RAM":

Contrary to many Apple lawyers here, I'd be all in for Apple (and anyone else) being legally obligated to use upgradable RAM and storage by the UE or any other government (I couldn't care less about those who say it would slow down innovation, and by the way it wouldn't)
But let's be realistic, that's good for the consumer, not for Apple's bottom line, so it's defintely not going to come from Apple unless it has no choice

That's why I explained that would not be good for their mobile devices (i.e., laptops), since those need LPDDR for energy efficiency, and LPDDR needs to be soldered.

Also, it's not the case that "ARM chips and upgradable RAM don't work together." What precludes upgradeable RAM is being mobile (and thus needing LPDDR), not being ARM. ARM desktops could use upgradeable RAM the same as x86 desktops.

 

[Finbarr Cnaipe]

That's not what you said in the post to which I replied....you we saying you'd be "all in for Apple (and anyone else) being legally obligated to use upgradable RAM":

That's why I explained that would not be good for their mobile devices (i.e., laptops), since those need LPDDR for energy efficiency, and LPDDR needs to be soldered.

Also, it's not the case that "ARM chips and upgradable RAM don't work together." What precludes upgradeable RAM is being mobile (and thus needing LPDDR), not being ARM. ARM desktops could use upgradeable RAM the same as x86 desktops.

FWIW, I think the RAM/Memory (onboard) paradigm discussion and the Storage discussion are completely separate discussions.

For RAM/Memory, there is a (IMHO) very valid Engineering discussion around performance optimization to include RAM on the SoC / chip, versus the old paradigm of RAM being socketed and separate on the Mainboard. Whether or not the increased performance optimization is (or should be) weighted enough to make the design paradigm change is debatable (IMHO)...but it is a real "Engineering" driven debate. AFAICS (so far), it seems a viable change for enhanced performance and optimization.

The Storage discussion is much less debatable (IMHO). AFAICS, there is NO "real" weighted (i.e., that "matters") device specific Engineering considerations (that I have heard), for the current limiting of Storage options and or "upgrade" capability....especially when Apple does stuff like on the Studio where they SW gate/block the socketed NVMe. That is clearly (at least to me) firmly in the anti-consumer/anti-enthusiast camp. This line of thinking is reflective of the "problem" in our Tech business....another example of enforcing mediocrity at the expense of exceptionalism. If your stated company goal is to "make products which delight our customers", I would suggest maybe we shouldn't be looking for ways to alienate our "enthusiast" segment who are critical in evangelizing our products. IMHO (and AFAICS), one of the huge reasons for the success of the first Intel Unibody Macbook Pros was the design and achitecture delighted the "enthusiast" segment, by making an awesome product that rocks, while accomodating the flexibility desired by even "non-Apple" fanboys general computer enthusiasts. Those enthusiasts on BOTH sides of the Mac/PC debate evangelized the exceptionalism of the Unibody Macbook Pro. (OS X along with bootcamp also helped).

Anyway, just my 2cents and observations.... As I said at the beginning "FWIW"....

Finny

 

[theorist9]

FWIW, I think the RAM/Memory (onboard) paradigm discussion and the Storage discussion are completely separate discussions.

For RAM/Memory, there is a (IMHO) very valid Engineering discussion around performance optimization to include RAM on the SoC / chip, versus the old paradigm of RAM being socketed and separate on the Mainboard. Whether or not the increased performance optimization is (or should be) weighted enough to make the design paradigm change is debatable (IMHO)...but it is a real "Engineering" driven debate. AFAICS (so far), it seems a viable change for enhanced performance and optimization.

The Storage discussion is much less debatable (IMHO). AFAICS, there is NO "real" weighted (i.e., that "matters") device specific Engineering considerations (that I have heard), for the current limiting of Storage options and or "upgrade" capability....especially when Apple does stuff like on the Studio where they SW gate/block the socketed NVMe. That is clearly (at least to me) firmly in the anti-consumer/anti-enthusiast camp. This line of thinking is reflective of the "problem" in our Tech business....another example of enforcing mediocrity at the expense of exceptionalism. If your stated company goal is to "make products which delight our customers", I would suggest maybe we shouldn't be looking for ways to alienate our "enthusiast" segment who are critical in evangelizing our products. IMHO (and AFAICS), one of the huge reasons for the success of the first Intel Unibody Macbook Pros was the design and achitecture delighted the "enthusiast" segment, by making an awesome product that rocks, while accomodating the flexibility desired by even "non-Apple" fanboys general computer enthusiasts. Those enthusiasts on BOTH sides of the Mac/PC debate evangelized the exceptionalism of the Unibody Macbook Pro. (OS X along with bootcamp also helped).

Anyway, just my 2cents and observations.... As I said at the beginning "FWIW"....

Finny

Agreed. I touched on this distinction somewhat in one my earlier posts....

Unfortunately, upgradeable RAM wouldn't be good for Apple's laptops, because it would mean they couldn't use low-powered LPDDR RAM, since such RAM needs to be soldered. [It's technically possible to have slotted LPDDR, but probably not a good idea, which is why everyone that sells devices with LPDDR solders it.]

OTOH, there's no reason they couldn't have upgradeable storage in all their devices, especially their desktops. But specifying that it has to be upgradeable would do the consumer no good unless Apple were also legally obligated to make the NAND chips non-proprietary. For instance, the storage in the Mac Pro is upgradeable, but you need to buy special chips from Apple, and they cost more than upgrading it at the time of sale.

...though I didn't specifically get into the question of whether RAM could or could not be upgradeable on Apple's desktop devices. I've participated in that discussion on another forum, and it's an interesting one: Could Apple's UMA allow for slotted RAM on the Studio and MacPro?

You might also find this thread interesting--some 3rd party-repair shops are sucessfully upgrading the storage on AS Macs:

M1/M2/M3 Macs user memory upgrades by soldering - blocked by Apple?

Has apple rolled out software updates bricking M1/M2/M3 devices that a user has chosen to upgrade themselves by soldering? There's plenty videos on youtube showing you the process. - SSD upgrade: - Memory upgrade:

forums.macrumors.com

 

[Digitalguy]

That's not what you said in the post to which I replied....you we saying you'd be "all in for Apple (and anyone else) being legally obligated to use upgradable RAM":

That's why I explained that would not be good for their mobile devices (i.e., laptops), since those need LPDDR for energy efficiency, and LPDDR needs to be soldered.

Also, it's not the case that "ARM chips and upgradable RAM don't work together." What precludes upgradeable RAM is being mobile (and thus needing LPDDR), not being ARM. ARM desktops could use upgradeable RAM the same as x86 desktops.

I said that in the first post cause I had forgot that Apple had moved to unified memory with their ARM chips, that's why I later said that at this point it makes little sense to go back on that front and lose the benefits of unified memory. That it is tecnically possible does not change things, since Apple has a clear argument there, while with storage it's just anticonsumer behaviour for the benefit of their bottom line.

 

[theorist9]

If 8GB RAM and/or 128/256GB/512GB Storage is adequate for a current user group, then I would make the suggestion to just get a Tablet/iPad type device instead, or stick with an iPhone/Android Phone. I don't see any reason for a user to need a full computer (Mac or PC) with these limitations.

I think there are a lot of Mac owners who definitely want to work in MacOS rather than iOS, because they want a full-featured computing experience, including a traditional desktop interface (with its multi-tasking environment, menu bar, dock windows, and access to full-featured office productivity apps), but got entry-level machines because that was all they could afford (think about students) and/or they're not technically inclined enough to have realized they might benefit from, say, more than 8 GB RAM.

And, up to a point, Apple's entry-level machines are fully functional for traditional desktop usage.

So I woudn't equate being someone who has chosen an entry-level Mac to being someone who would be adequately served by an iPad or phone.

 

[Digitalguy]

I think there are a lot of Mac owners who definitely want to work in MacOS rather than iOS, because they want a full-featured computing experience, but got entry-level machines because that was all they could afford and/or they're not technically inclined enough to have realized they might benefit from, say, more than 8 GB RAM.

I don't buy the "all they can afford" argument, especially with certain MacBooks. I think the second scenario is by far more likely...

 

[theorist9]

I don't buy the "all they can afford" argument, especially with certain MacBooks. I think the second scenario is by far more likely...

Then you don't know many students on tight budgets....or parents of students who are themselves on tight budgets.

 

[Digitalguy]

Then you don't know many students on tight budgets....or parents of students who are themselves on tight budgets.

I should know them since I am a university teacher, but I still don't buy the argument in most cases... Certain MacBooks in particular, like the $1600 M3 (€2050 in Europe), are not a device typically bought by students. The main reason people buy 8GB Macs is because they don't know any better and because Apple (conveniently) doesn't sell 16GB RAM devices in stores, other than the even more expensive ones. Most students on tight budgets buy Windows laptops by the way.

 

[kiranmk2]

5 years from now Apple won't care in the sligtest if some people bare annoyed by 8GB of RAM just because they went with the base model. If you do very basic stuff and don't open too many tabs 8GB will be fine in 5 or even even 10 years, as some swapping has never killed anyone (other than maybe some SSDs, but that will be very far down the line). I do fine with a 4GB RAM machine if I only do very basic stuff and only use it as a secondary device.
But you spent $1600 / €2050 on that machine! You wanna do everything with it right? Who cares, that's your problem, you should have spend your money more wisely.
Apple hasn't cared when some iPads became almost unusable with updates, due to too little RAM, I don't see them having trouble with that now. 8GB RAM Macbooks will do much better than that.
Are those Macbooks a good value. No, a terrible value IMO at those prices. But again, people will just sell them and hopefully learn the lesson. There will be no war against Apple, no meaningful hit to their reputation.

That is the problem Apple is storing up for itself. Reputation can be destroyed quickly and if people see that their Apple laptops lose OS support in <5 years or their $1599 laptop starts underperforming in a year or two then they will question why they should spend that much on a future laptop. After all, the common belief is that Windows laptops can be picked up for much less than MacBooks, but they will start to slow down after a few years. (Despite not owning a Windows PC for >15 years I have noticed my work-issued Dell slowing down over the period of 18 motnhs despite only having minimal, vetted software installed so this Windows impact is still there). If you look on eBay, the base spec models are the most frequently listed by far so there will be a lot of people who have dropped north of $1000 on a current gen Mac with 8 GB (M2 Airs and Mini, M3 MBP and iMac). Looking at Dell (UK) as soon as you spend >£600 (half the price of a 13" M2 MBA) on an Inspiron (14/15") you get 16 GB and 1 TB SSD as standard.

The other side of this is that Apple can't control the RAM demands of the internet. Even browsing the web takes up so much RAM now compared to even 5 years ago, so while Apple can control how much RAM the OS takes up, they have pretty much no control if new web page features start guzzling RAM.

 

[theorist9]

I should know them since I am a university teacher, but I still don't buy the argument in most cases... Certain MacBooks in particular, like the $1600 M3 (€2050 in Europe), are not a device typically bought by students. The main reason people buy 8GB Macs is because they don't know any better and because Apple (conveniently) doesn't sell 16GB RAM devices in stores, other than the even more expensive ones. Most students on tight budgets buy Windows laptops by the way.

Me too.

I can't speak for the situation in Europe, but here in the US my university bookstore's range of in-stock 13" Airs goes from the 8 GB/256 GB M1 Air ($900) to a 16 GB/1 TB M2 Air ($1480). So higher configurations are readily available.

And by "on a tight budget" I assumed it was understood I meant among those who want to buy Macs (typically because they prefer MacOS). They're the kinds of students who will buy the $900 M1, or get a used Mac.

 

[Digitalguy]

Me too.

I can't speak for the situation in Europe, but here in the US my university bookstore's range of in-stock 13" Airs goes from the 8 GB/256 GB M1 Air ($900) to a 16 GB/1 TB M2 Air ($1480). So higher configurations are readily available.

And by "on a tight budget" I assumed it was understood I meant among those who want to buy Macs (typically because they prefer MacOS). They're the kinds of students who will buy the $900 M1, or get a used Mac.

M1 air is indeed more typically a student machine than a M3. But even when it come to students, I still believe the main reason is that 16GB RAM devices cost like 50% more than those base models which here are $850 (I know prices do not match perfecly the US ones, but I am translating Swiss prices assuming 1 USD = 1 CHF). They often find used ones for $600-700, and I have seen them new for little over $700 on Black Friday, while it's almost impossible to find 16GB variants used and new 16GB models are basically at Apple store prices ($1300). This, together with most people knowing very little about tech, is the main reason why everyone buys those models (and then floods the used market with them). With Windows devices it's a very different story, since you can find 16GB laptops for cheaper than 8GB MacBook air. So Apple conveniently keeps those upgraded models out of reach and makes them poor value anyway, so that people either jump to a higher tier if they can afford it or are pushed to upgrade them more often because they feel limited in terms of RAM and/or storage.

 

[theorist9]

Sorry, before you were saying you didn't buy my idea that cost was a factor in folks buying the 8 GB model....

I don't buy the "all they can afford" argument, especially with certain MacBooks. I think the second scenario is by far more likely...

....but now you seem to be agreeing with me that price is an important driver in the decision to get 8 GB instead of 16 GB. Is something getting lost in translation here?:

M1 air is indeed more typically a student machine than a M3. But even when it come to students, I still believe the main reason is that 16GB RAM devices cost like 50% more than those base models which here are $850 (I know prices do not match perfecly the US ones, but I am translating Swiss prices assuming 1 USD = 1 CHF).

Also, the M1 Air not only a more typical machine for students, it's more typical among all Mac customers generally--as Apple themselves have said, the Air is the most popular Mac. And, not coincidentally, the Air also their least expensive laptop, which is consistent with my contention that price is a big driver when Mac users make purchase decisions.

 

[JinxVi]

The other side of this is that Apple can't control the RAM demands of the internet. Even browsing the web takes up so much RAM now compared to even 5 years ago, so while Apple can control how much RAM the OS takes up, they have pretty much no control if new web page features start guzzling RAM.

Improved single-core performance of M-series chips dramatically increased their scores in web benchmarks. So albeit the RAM is overflowing, Safari feels much snappier than before. The base memory config seems stuck at 8 GB, but the clock speed is increasing with every ARM processor generation.

 

[Digitalguy]

Sorry, before you were saying you didn't buy my idea that cost was a factor in folks buying the 8 GB model....

....but now you seem to be agreeing with me that price is an important driver in the decision to get 8 GB instead of 16 GB. Is something getting lost in translation here?:

Also, the M1 Air not only a more typical machine for students, it's more typical among all Mac customers generally--as Apple themselves have said, the Air is the most popular Mac. And, not coincidentally, the Air also their least expensive laptop, which is consistent with my contention that price is a big driver when Mac users make purchase decisions.

Price is a big driver for any computer decision, that's why Windows computer dominate.
But there is more to it. There is value, there are priorities and there is what "afford" really mean.
Can students afford a $2000 laptop? The answer would of course be generally no. But would some of them buy it if they had no choice, like I did when I was a student and laptops started at $2000?
You simply wait until you have enough money in that case, like I did, cause the alternative is no laptop at all.
Could a student afford a 16GB RAM Macbook at $1200-$1300? Many probably could if they stretch their budget and maybe wait a bit longer (if you really want something you stretch you budget and/or wait to have saved enough, just like when you decide you prefer a Mac instead of a cheaper Windows laptop). But that's a terrible value when you can get a 8GB one for $850 new or $600 used (again prices where I live). And anyway most of them don't even know much about the difference between 8GB and 16GB, so why would they spend so much more for something they don't even know if it's important or not. Battery life is a easier thing to understand, so when they hear than M Macs last much longer than Windows on battery they can be pushed to stretch their budget and get a Mac even if they don't care about MacOS.
So again when I questioned the "all they can afford" I was not saying that price is not a factor, it is always a factor. But it's more complex than that and people often use the word "afford" too easily, and sometimes in these forums they get aggressive when you question it (the poor students that's all they can spend... how dare you think otherwise) when the reality is that's more a matter of priorities and priorities are determined by a lot of factors, including preferences, percieved value, knowledge of the subject (in this case computers), etc.

 

[toke lahti]

For RAM/Memory, there is a (IMHO) very valid Engineering discussion around performance optimization to include RAM on the SoC / chip, versus the old paradigm of RAM being socketed and separate on the Mainboard. Whether or not the increased performance optimization is (or should be) weighted enough to make the design paradigm change is debatable (IMHO)...but it is a real "Engineering" driven debate. AFAICS (so far), it seems a viable change for enhanced performance and optimization.

Similarily like there is usually 3 cache levels used in modern computers, there could be several RAM levels used.
The fastest is on packet and there could be few options, but you could expand with slower memory outside of the package.

Mixing different speeds of memory seems to be becoming normal.
Ssd:s are using mixed configs.
Well, Fusion drive was this also.
(I'm still thinking, should I Fusion my mini2018 internal ssd to my new nvme... Or just spare the internal for future use...)

Am I mistaken, that Apple's excuse for "paired ssd" is security?

 

[AlmightyKang]

Price is a big driver for any computer decision, that's why Windows computer dominate.
But there is more to it. There is value, there are priorities and there is what "afford" really mean.
Can students afford a $2000 laptop? The answer would of course be generally no. But would some of them buy it if they had no choice, like I did when I was a student and laptops started at $2000?
You simply wait until you have enough money in that case, like I did, cause the alternative is no laptop at all.
Could a student afford a 16GB RAM Macbook at $1200-$1300? Many probably could if they stretch their budget and maybe wait a bit longer (if you really want something you stretch you budget and/or wait to have saved enough, just like when you decide you prefer a Mac instead of a cheaper Windows laptop). But that's a terrible value when you can get a 8GB one for $850 new or $600 used (again prices where I live). And anyway most of them don't even know much about the difference between 8GB and 16GB, so why would they spend so much more for something they don't even know if it's important or not. Battery life is a easier thing to understand, so when they hear than M Macs last much longer than Windows on battery they can be pushed to stretch their budget and get a Mac even if they don't care about MacOS.
So again when I questioned the "all they can afford" I was not saying that price is not a factor, it is always a factor. But it's more complex than that and people often use the word "afford" too easily, and sometimes in these forums they get aggressive when you question it (the poor students that's all they can spend... how dare you think otherwise) when the reality is that's more a matter of priorities and priorities are determined by a lot of factors, including preferences, percieved value, knowledge of the subject (in this case computers), etc.

Actually it's not just price. Sometimes there are software compatibility issues with Macs when it comes to education.

For example I currently have to deal with Minitab on a regular basis which is definitely not macOS compatible. I'm running it inside a VM in AWS though.

 

[Digitalguy]

Actually it's not just price. Sometimes there are software compatibility issues with Macs when it comes to education.

For example I currently have to deal with Minitab on a regular basis which is definitely not macOS compatible. I'm running it inside a VM in AWS though.

Indeed that's even a big factor, but can be related to price too. For instance I need a couple of Windows only software all day long. They work perfectly with Parallels, but that adds money every year to the price of the Mac... Also the copy and paste etc. from VM to MacOS is not always seamless so the experience is not the same as with pure Windows.

Also, another cost factor is that even if you run a couple of apps that themselves take a couple of hundreds MB RAM, you need to run full Windows with Parallels, which means allocating around 8GB to run it smoothly, so a 16GB Mac is a minimum and one with even more RAM is even better is Parallels is running all the time, which means buying a more expensive machine than if those apps run natively

 

[toke lahti]

...and remembering that modern hi-rez screens eat that same RAM...