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

[Digitalguy]

What's being spoken of is the lowest-end base models that more than 80% of users will likely buy.

BTOs are the last 1% of performance.

The very reason why most people (the 80% figure of course is just your guess, nobody has statistics) buy the base model, at least for laptops (for Mac Minis I wouldn't be so sure), is precisely the BTO model and the high premium for upgrade.
Btw, I don't even know what you mean with your last sentence but a lot of professionals buy BTO Macs

 

[sam_dean]

The very reason why most people (the 80% figure of course is just your guess, nobody has statistics) buy the base model, at least for laptops (for Mac Minis I wouldn't be so sure), is precisely the BTO model and the high premium for upgrade.
Btw, I don't even know what you mean with your last sentence but a lot of professionals buy BTO Macs

I'm using 80-20 rule.

BTOs are configs that are statistically insignificant to be included in base model choices.

 

[playtech1]

I do think Apple's margins are healthy enough that doubling base RAM and SSD sizes across the board would not materially impact its profitability.

Longer term I think it would be great for the ecosystem as well if there was a higher baseline spec - particularly on RAM.

 

[Digitalguy]

Agreed.

Atm the equivalent storage compared to a standard M.2 NVME drive is about 3-4x higher cost on an Apple product. With no 3rd party options and no upgradeability there is no way to do something like "buy smaller size now, upgrade when/if you need more" or you have to resort to external enclosure drives.

Meanwhile making the RAM impossible to update also means you have to sell your whole machine if you need more memory.

All this is borderline acceptable on a laptop where most people never open it, but it's a ridiculous thing on a desktop system. While technically afaik the Mac Studio drives are removable, there is no upgrade option offered afaik and instead of using a standard M.2, they have their proprietary solution.

Apple is at the same time bean counting with the reduced performance baseline drives and then price gouging with the upgrades. All the while advertising "starting from" prices that never end up being what many users need. Especially with no discounts during the year for BTO options.

Yeah, I would have loved to make a desktop Mac Mini or Studio my main work device, instead of a Windows desktop, also to take advatange of the integration with my iPads and a couple of MacBooks that I have. But I can't justify the cost, especially as someone that needs to use some Windows only software for work, and would need to run Parallels most of the time to keep them open.
Once you add the cost for 32 GB RAM (in order to give at least 8 to Windows and at least 16 or more to MacOS), the cost of at least 1TB for my local storage including the VM and the $120 a year for the full Paralles subcriptions you are in the $2000 + recurring cost (and I don't count accessories that I already have like keyboards, mice and a 4k monitors).
I could have paid a premium for Apple, but paying over double what I would pay for a Mini PC with Ryzen, basically rules out Macs as an option.
At this point my M1 Mac Mini is only a secondary work device (and my main server)

 

[maflynn]

I do think Apple's margins are healthy enough that doubling base RAM and SSD sizes across the board would not materially impact its profitability.

And yet they opted for the single NAND setup first for the 256GB SSDs and now 512GB SSDs. They didn't do this for the benefit of the consumer. Its for their margins. If they're cutting corners to keep their margins, they're not about to double ram/ssds

 

[Digitalguy]

I'm using 80-20 rule.

BTOs are configs that are statistically insignificant to be included in base model choices.

BTOs are a big part of Apple profits because of the high margins, and very far from being statistically insignificant, contrary to the Windows world.

 

[sam_dean]

BTOs are a big part of Apple profits because of the high margins, and very far from being statistically insignificant, contrary to the Windows world.

I think you do not understand.

If it was that important then how come it isn't listed as a standard SKU?

 

[maflynn]

BTOs are a big part of Apple profits because of the high margins, and very far from being statistically insignificant, contrary to the Windows world.

Yep, people have by and large bought into the idea of "future proofing" Now Apple is providing even more motivation to over-spec a computer

 

[thenewperson]

They should quadruple them for even more value! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Alex Cai]

Of course it would be better value for money. Unfortunately, Apple is about maximising revenue, not minimising it. And folks who believe that higher-specced base Macs would significantly raise Apple's market share are overly optimistic.

If Steve is here……

 

[laptech]

Regardless of the manufacturer, allow the device to be user upgradeable (ram, SSD/HDD and CPU) and that device instantly becomes desirable and very good value for money.

 

[maflynn]

And folks who believe that higher-specced base Macs would significantly raise Apple's market share are overly optimistic.

Apple has shied away from the race to the bottom, i.e., more for less and it has served them well. Companies like Dell, HP and before that Compaq did that and got themselves in deep weeds.

 

[playtech1]

The recent price rises would have been far more palatable if they came with a better base spec.

I realise Apple is a profit maximising company and so we shouldn't expect generosity, but it does try and put out a quality product and I think selling Macs with crippled performance is a bad look that tarnishes the brand.

Even technically unskilled users who buy a base model know when something is slow or they run out of SSD space. They may just think that's how all Macs are and head back to Windows. My mother is a grandma who might only use her Mac on a Sunday (no church), but she is not particularly patient with technology and would have no idea how to optimise her storage usage or keep her RAM usage low.

 

[Digitalguy]

I think you do not understand.

If it was that important then how come it isn't listed as a standard SKU?

Because that allows them to keep them at full price (= full margins) with no discounts, which also incentivizes people to buy them from Apple themselves. That's a very clever profit-enhancing strategy. They know that professionals and many enthusiasts want more than the base specs, so their sale strategy allows them to cater for a large customer base with the base model and then make a lot of profits on the BTOs with a smaller base thanks to much higher margins (just like they do with the base iPad vs iPad pro).
PS edited to correct some spelling mistakes

 

[bcortens]

The main reason I think this is a good idea is because under the Tim era we have seen the storage and memory capacities stagnate.

The iMac has had 8GB of memory as the base since 2012 (10+ years)
The MacBook Air has 8GB since 2017 (5+ years)

This is why we shouldn't just give apple a pass on this. The fact that Apple hasn't upgraded capacity on the base models is insulting and atrocious.

32 GB of the most expensive laptop DDR5 at NewEgg is $198 for me right now - I know that LPDDR is more expensive but apple is probably making close to 90% margin on memory upgrades right now.

128 GB of flash storage was the base on MacBook Air since 2013! (About 10 years)
With the M1 is still was 128GB when it launched! Flash memory is cheaper than this, I know apple buys ultra high capacity chips but the reason we are seeing slower speeds on the low capacity machines is because it is getting harder to get low capacity modules! They could switch to 512GB as the base storage but that would mean fewer people upgrade to the sensible mid level machine.

If apple just doubled these capacities every 5 years we would have 16 GB Memory 512 GB storage base MacBook Airs.
The problem is that this is such a good amount that fewer people would be compelled to pay apple's ridiculous memory and storage prices.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

Best comment of the year. Someone should make an advertising piece for Apple.

"We designed a new PC for your granny – and we think SHE WILL LOVE IT!
With a CPU from 10 years ago, this Mac is not for the faint of heart. Only old people will have THE PATIENCE that it takes to use it.

Available for only $666 in Granny Smith color!"

Made my day, thanks

 

[bcortens]

If Steve is here……

Seriously this is true... the Tim Cook era has seen memory and storage capacities stagnate.

Just look at historic timelines of increases and you can see that pre-Cook they doubled more quickly:

Looking just at the base model iMac.

Steve Era: (Every 2 years memory and storage doubled)
1999: 10 GB Storage - 64 MB RAM
2000: 7 GB Storage - 64 MB RAM (Price drop year)
2001: 20 GB Storage - 128 MB RAM
2002: 40 GB Storage - 128 MB RAM
2003: 80 GB Storage - 256 MB RAM
2004: 80 GB Storage - 256 MB RAM
2005: 160 GB Storage - 512 MB RAM
2006: 160 GB Storage - 512 MB RAM
2007: 250 GB Storage - 1 GB RAM
2008: 250 GB Storage - 1 GB RAM
2009: 320 GB Storage - 2 GB RAM
2010: 500 GB Storage - 4 GB RAM
2011: 500 GB Storage - 4 GB RAM

Tim Era:
2012: 1 TB Storage - 8 GB RAM
2013: 500 GB Storage - 4 GB RAM (Education initially later everyone for a lower price)
2014: 500 GB Storage - 8 GB RAM
2015: 1 TB Storage - 8 GB RAM
2016: No iMacs
2017: 1 TB (or Fusion Drive) Storage - 8 GB Memory
2018: No iMacs
2019: 1 TB (Fusion Drive w/ 32 GB Flash) Storage - 8 GB Memory
2020: No small iMac (5K updated)
2021: 256 GB Storage - 8 GB Memory

The Tim Era is one of stagnation. The switch to all flash in 2021 might normally excuse a drop in capacity but it should still have dropped to around 512 GB since the iMac in 2017 had 256 GB of flash storage option and he couldn't even be bothered to double that with the base M1 iMac ...

There is a stark difference between the Steve and Tim eras.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Think of the children! Why stop at doubling? Triple or quadruple everything (for the same price of course).

Apple would find that they would ship FAR more systems to customers if they gave them away. Think of the marketshare!

 

[leman]

Seriously this is true... the Tim Cook era has seen memory and storage capacities stagnate.

This is industry-wide trend, not Tim Cook. Why should Apple be more generous with specs than other manufacturers? It is only from the second half of 2022 that we see Dell and co. increase the base SSD capacity to 512GB on their premium laptops (still 8GB RAM though). If this trend continues we might get 16GB/512GB as standard on the Air in a year or two.

 

[Fishrrman]

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

"Value for money"?
That ain't in Apple's plan.
"More profits"... is.

 

[dukebound85]

i dunno, i feel apple has been stangnant on space and ram at 500/16 for a decade now

 

[hagjohn]

On a business side, it would be good for Apple to get rid of the 8GB/HD devices by not having to buying the memory/HD and not having to stock material/devices but I don't really see them doing it.

 

[tornadowrangler]

I think the real issue is with the fact that they made a decision that led to a performance downgrade in order to save them money, but then did not seemly pass that savings to the consumer.

If the M1 Air or MBPs had a single module SSD, and then the M2s did as well, there wouldn't have been an issue. It wouldn't have been a downgrade.

Even if the downgraded in performance wouldn't be "noticed" by "most" users, I think it's at least reasonable to say that in general it's not a good practice to have the next generation of a product to be worse at something, but still cost as much or more.

 

[bcortens]

This is industry-wide trend, not Tim Cook. Why should Apple be more generous with specs than other manufacturers? It is only from the second half of 2022 that we see Dell and co. increase the base SSD capacity to 512GB on their premium laptops (still 8GB RAM though). If this trend continues we might get 16GB/512GB as standard on the Air in a year or two.

What other companies are doing shouldn't be Apple's guiding light.

Memory and storage prices are better now than they were 5 years ago, especially storage prices. Apple was offering extremely competitive base models prior to the Tim Cook era. Nowadays I don't recommend the base models anymore because as needs have grown (especially photo storage needs) the storage capacity didn't grow with it.

Just listen to yourself, "if this trend continues we might get 16GB/512GB standard in a year or two", that's just denial and bargaining. Even if we grant that the timeline for doubling should have multiplied by 2 (rather than some slower increase from 2 years to 3 years doubling time) we should already have 16GB/512GB.
GPUs are 100s, CPUs 10s of times faster, and we are bargaining over a mere doubling?

 

[redheeler]

8 GB to start with on the Mac mini is fine...but RAM upgrade prices should be slashed in half across the board, right now they're at pretty absurd "you can't upgrade later so shut up and give me your money" levels.