Apple's Regular Mac Base RAM Boosts Ended When Tim Cook Took Over

[dgdosen]

It's fine as long as memory pressure isn't red.

macOS is supposed to use all RAM available. Having free RAM is bad.

This will be interesting - let's see what happens to the memory pressure (or swap disk paging) on an 8GB Mac when trying to do inference on these huge models. Especially the Macs needing a good chunk of that memory just to keep the screen running.

Hopefully we'll see this when installing a Beta of macOS 15 at WWDC (in less than 8 weeks)

 

[truthsteve]

But, topically, when Apple claims that 8GB Mac is equivalent to 16GB Wintel they are similarly talking horse manure 😃

you sure about that?

Apple Silicon M1: Black. Magic. Fuckery.

These are the words used by the user holdagold on reddit to describe their experience with the new Apple Silicon M1 Macbook Air. Rarely does a product leave people effusing to the extent Apple Silicon M1 has done this week.

singhkays.com

 

[dgdosen]

Also, hat tip to MR for a non-forum, hard-hitting, deservedly-critical article on Apple.

My gut is telling me there are people at Apple that aren't Tim Cook using MR/Gruber/Snell type folks to give these types of narratives more visibility...

 

[PlayUltimate]

Apple has been about price points for decades. It's no coincidence that the 12" PowerBook G4 started off at $1799. The 'well equipped' 16/512 14" MacBook Pro? You guessed it, $1799.

While the prices of the base model machines have fluctuated a bit, going up after major redesigns for a year or two only to settle back down, the moral of the story is that Apple has always sold what they believe is a solid machine for about the same price.

What we've seen in recent years is Apple sliding in an 'SE' version of hardware that is current, yet slightly handicapped by ram and storage. The benefit has been that they have a model that can be sold by 3rd party retailers, discounted, etc. in order to keep the anti-competition folks off their backs for keeping the retail chain locked down. For custom builds, Apple is happy to handle the sale and make money off of those that need the upgrades.

99% of users have their needs met by these 'useless' base models (an average MR reader is not an average user). It helps boost market share by providing machines at an entry level price that can be stomached by students, families on a tighter budget, and opens Apple's old student discount prices to a broader audience (My 12" G4 PowerBook was $1399 in 2003). They have executed their plan to perfection.

All that said, I believe Apples' ram/storage upgrade prices should be dropped by 50%, but on the other hand, I think the CPU upgrade prices could go up slightly.

With ML/AI coming to the forefront, what would have likely been another 2-3 years at 8GB as the standard, I believe we will see 16GB become the standard in 1-2 years.

What bothers me more than the ram situation is the storage situation. My last spinning drive in my 2012 MBP was 500GB, and Apple was always skimpy on storage over the years. The last time I calculated what base storage should be today, we should have 4TB of storage as the standard (more than the vast majority need, but 1TB would not break Apple's bank).

agree. Apple RAM upgrades should be in $100 increments. And greater price separation between the devices themselves The 14" M3Pro , 18/512 is $1999. The 15" M3 16/512 is $1699. That is a 17% difference for more RAM, better chip, and more ports. Not sure if that gap is big enough. Or Apple is just good at making us spend a little more money.

 

[DJC631]

Just more reason to get a Framework.

 

[Jim Lahey]

you sure about that?

As sure as I'll ever need to be. I have no doubt that Apple does some splendid things with 8GB, but in the end there's just no replacement for displacement. More RAM is always better. Especially when then there's no discrete VRAM.

 

[DavidSchaub]

agree. Apple RAM upgrades should be in $100 increments. And greater price separation between the devices themselves The 14" M3Pro , 18/512 is $1999. The 15" M3 16/512 is $1699. That is a 17% difference for more RAM, better chip, and more ports. Not sure if that gap is big enough. Or Apple is just good at making us spend a little more money.

Apple is masterful at "for a few hundred dollars more":

DavidSchaub (@dschaub@mstdn.social)

Attached: 1 image The MacBook purchasing thought process...

mstdn.social

 

[truthsteve]

As sure as I'll ever need to be. I have no doubt that Apple does some splendid things with 8GB, but in the end there's just no replacement for displacement. More RAM is always better. Especially when then there's no discrete VRAM.

exact words were "8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems". never said "less ram is better"

 

[Jim Lahey]

...never said "less ram is better"

Yeah that's fair. Didn't intend to misrepresent anyone. That part of my post was more of a separate aside. Ultimately, while I absolutely accept that Apple are able to perform some half-convincing witchcraft with 8GB, I simply don't believe they can effectively double the available RAM in an 8GB Mac in any meaningful comparison with a 16GB windows machine. But let's set all that aside, because I'd rather have a 16GB Mac than both 👍

 

[Algr]

I used to be proud of being a mac user. Now I feel like a chump.
This is the whole problem right here:

I'm sure the Mac memory is better somehow, but they charge ten times the price! How do I explain this to people? Macs do some things better, but it isn't the earth-shattering difference it was in the 1980s, and they do other important things far worse than windows. They make me feel like a victim.

 

[trip1ex]

You are right you are making straw man arguments.

You started off with you can not think of one game. Several got listed and quite a few of them are several years old proving your starting argument outdated.

Your entire argument is “I don’t need it there for fine for everyone”

Then caught and you shift the goal post. I would give if it was modern games but those are older games. At this point base spec should be 16gigs if not 32 gigs.

Maybe one day you'll realize the discussion isn't about pc games. Until then you can remain wrong.

 

[Algr]

tell me again how your analogy is good.

Imagine someone has an idea for a program or game, but it needs 16 GB of ram. What systems will they write for? PS5? No problem. Windows? There are probably more 16GB windows boxes in use than Macs with M series chips, and those who need more can upgrade for $20 or so. So again, no problem.

But how many Macs have enough ram? Why bother porting it to Mac if so few will be able to run it anyway?

The result is that it doesn't matter that you COULD have a Mac with 16 GB of ram, applications that can't run with less won't have mac versions. And you can buy a whole PC with less money than Apple charges for 1 TB storage.

 

[Jim Lahey]

They make me feel like a victim.

Thanks for that. You just summarised my subconscious thought every time I've attempted to build a custom spec Mac 🤣

 

[Realityck]

I used to be proud of being a mac user. Now I feel like a chump.
This is the whole problem right here:
View attachment 2372493 View attachment 2372494

I'm sure the Mac memory is better somehow, but they charge ten times the price! How do I explain this to people? Macs do some things better, but it isn't the earth-shattering difference it was in the 1980s, and they do other important things far worse than windows. They make me feel like a victim.

Thats an example of Apple utilizing laptop memory in the older intel iMacs. Presently with a PC desktop I use DDR5 RAM 32GB (2x16GB) 6000MHz CL30 for $125. But I wasn't a fan of Apple's cheap RAM slots in iMac, you could have contact issues causing it to fail comprehensive memory patterns that you would blame the OS. Used OWC and they say their memory is good, but they don't run real speed tests only portable tester verification. At least with soldered on RAM that becomes a non-issue with AS Macs and you benefit with unified memory speed enhancements. But I get the hammering on Apple for this token pricing unrelated to modern part costs.

 

[AlexJaye]

People will defend ol' Tim'tim to the end.

His greed knows no end, just like that incessant Southern drawl.

 

[TruthAboveAllElse]

Unified memory isn't magic.

It isn't?! Don't tell me my tacked isn't either!

 

[dwaite]

Is 8GB a good idea for any sort of future proofing? Absolutely not.
I can't imagine buying a computer with 8GB of ram now and expect it to run fine in 2028...

If Apple still sells the majority of their computers with 8GB RAM, then software developers will be highly motivated to keep their wares running within that space.

What correctly operating single application uses up more than 6GB RAM that isn't meant for specialized professional usage?

On iPad and iPhone, such applications have to get an entitlement to be able to take that much system memory - most applications are constrained down, which is what enables background operations and fast-switching to work so well.

 

[dwaite]

A penny here, a penny there. It adds up.

View attachment 2372083

They would increase the base price or remove some other feature.

 

[Abazigal]

I used to be proud of being a mac user. Now I feel like a chump.
This is the whole problem right here:
View attachment 2372493 View attachment 2372494

I'm sure the Mac memory is better somehow, but they charge ten times the price! How do I explain this to people? Macs do some things better, but it isn't the earth-shattering difference it was in the 1980s, and they do other important things far worse than windows. They make me feel like a victim.

My general philosophy when it comes to buying stuff is that I would rather pay more for something that I want to use (and which I know I will be happy using), rather than spend less on something I know won't work as well for me. So I end up paying 10 times more for the ram upgrade on a new Mac. Big deal, when I am looking to use it for the next 3 years at least. Can I pay to get the equivalent of Apple Silicon for Windows laptops? If not, then it's a moot argument either way.

If people think that the ability to save some money by installing their own ram on a laptop (how many laptops don't solder their ram at this juncture?) is worth giving up the benefits of Apple Silicon, better build quality and macOS for the next 4-5 years, then go with a windows laptop by all means.

It just strikes me as penny-wise, pound-foolish.

 

[TVreporter]

Of course, we're using iCloud. It increases the value of every Mac, iPhone and iPad. And it makes it easy not to store everything on every single device.

The guy I asked said he doesn’t use either.

 

[Algr]

If people think that the ability to save some money by installing their own ram on a laptop (how many laptops don't solder their ram at this juncture?)

I don't use a laptop. I have a base Studio for serious work and an iPad. Components are always cheaper than consumer add-ons, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it would cost Apple less than $20 per mac to include 16 GB standard. The absurdly small and overpriced HDs are also an issue. Having to use an external drive with a laptop is a huge increase in clumsiness and potential failure. (Even if it is an SSD.)

 

[ilikewhey]

from your link:iMac Pro (2017)

2024 - 2017 = 7 years. likely more than 7 if you consider that Ventura has had more than 12 months of software updates which Sonoma seems to be following the same suit.

sure, if you want to cherry pick a discontinued model that apple has yet to replace in 7 years you do you. regardless, pushing software update as a vindication to excuse the narrative that a company isn't greedy is the weakest excuse this side of the Mississippi 😂

macOS Monterey (launched on 2021, last updated with minor semver update to 12.7 at Sept 2023, security update on March 2024) supported Oct 2013 Mac Pro products. at least 9 YEARS

my reason remains intact. yours however, isn't.

read my previous reply since you weren't clear on support being new OS support or simple security upgrade.

as I previously stated, pushing security updates isn't a validation to discredit a company's greed, in fact its the least apple can do, as I also previously stated, windows still support W10 til 2025 from 2015 release, windows 7 was supported from 2009 til 2020, a whopping 11 years.

your reasoning weren't even relevant in the first place, to excuse apple's greed for charging 200 dollars for a 20 dollars part because apple is keeping in line with industry standard when it comes to software support is just bad logic.

 

[Jamie0003]

lmao orrrrrr...what I said.

Nah, margins are margins

 

[ilikewhey]

exact words were "8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems". never said "less ram is better"

nope, even thats false, 8gb still 8gb unified or not, when you hit 8gb ram usage, system still swaps to storage, mac doesn't magically pull another 8gb out of nowhere.

 

[DavidSchaub]

These Micron modules are NOT the RAM Apple uses, but I wonder how similar these parts are to the ones Apple uses:

8GB chip (so 16GB MBA would use two): $64 each in units of ~1000

MT62F1G64D4CZ-023 WT:C Micron | Mouser

MT62F1G64D4CZ-023 WT:C Micron DRAM LPDDR5 64Gbit 64 561/570 TFBGA 4 WT datasheet, inventory, & pricing.

www.mouser.ca

4 GB chip (so 8GB MBA would use two): $29 each in units of ~500

https://www.mouser.ca/ProductDetail/Micron/MT62F1G32D4DR-031-WTB?qs=Wj%2FVkw3K%252BMAQnk0A174vSA%3D%3D

The real kicker is that Apple's purchasing volumes are SO huge... but at least this is *closer* to comparing Apples to Apples.