The problem is that Apple doesn't allow the user to add more RAM like before.
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.
Apple's Regular Mac Base RAM Boosts Ended When Tim Cook Took Over
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We know. That’s what happens when you promote a bean counting human dial tone to the top spot of a company like Apple.
And then his mentality infects everyone below him, leading to a “can’t innovate my @ss” adversarial attitude.
And then his mentality infects everyone below him, leading to a “can’t innovate my @ss” adversarial attitude.
Let's not talk about how bloated Adobe Software has gotten . . . when a company doesn't have the competition to force them to be more efficient or upgrade existing problems, then why bother?
That’s nonsense, because they still can only store 8 GB of data, and SSDs are much slower (and even slower in comparison when the RAM is faster).
I simply don't buy this. Here's a stress test on an M1 with 8 gb of ram doing much more than you are claiming to do without coming close to freezing:
Last edited:
I think Apple hides the real cost(or really, at what they believe are acceptable profit margins) of the their devices behind the base configurations, kind of like a form of hiding inflation, like shrinkflation.
It’s a way being able to offer that $1000 price point that’s barely acceptable for basic users.
To Apple’s credit, they do seem to be more open to community feedback in recent years, so I suspect we will soon see an increase in base RAM since the low base RAM is starting to get attention.
With all these Electron apps and modern web pages hogging resources, I tend to say no 😅 I see more and more what I'd consider simple apps taking 300-700 MBs.
But you know, Apple sold a Mac Mini with 4 GB of soldered RAM from 2014 to 2018, and from day one the OS was taking most of the memory from my experience (so imagine 4 years later). I had one to act as a small server, and this thing was a beachball fest. Was it working? Yes, I guess.
I don't think the base configuration on Apple laptops and phones is that big of a problem or a sign of out of control greed.
Where I have more of a problem is the crazy prize for ram upgrades, especially as ram can no longer be upgraded after purchase.
That part feels like extortion, but options are "limited" when you want a fast machine that runs MacOS.
Where I have more of a problem is the crazy prize for ram upgrades, especially as ram can no longer be upgraded after purchase.
That part feels like extortion, but options are "limited" when you want a fast machine that runs MacOS.
Last edited:
Tim is just channeling the spirit of another (in)famous tech luminary. 🤓
![68a75x1v2ez21.jpg]( "68a75x1v2ez21.jpg")
More people need to repeat this to themselves when reading graphs. Any and all graphs, really.
Ram need has plateaued. Article even mentions it. Most people, were they to use 16gb, wouldn’t notice a difference.
I’m not going to defend Tim Cook but there is lots of context missing from this analysis. Maybe it’s addressed in the original source material but 2011 is also around the time it became clear the iPhone was and would be Apples big $$$ maker. There was a fair bit of stagnation in the Mac lineup for a while, so it’s not surprising Apple slacked off on spec bumps for the Macs. I recall the Mac Pro was delayed due to Apple waiting for Intel to produce the chips for it.
My bigger issue with the ram situation is the inability to upgrade after purchase. This has relegated thousands of Macs to obsolescence when the OS eventually outpaces the 8gb limitations baked in to the base models.
It’s about $$$, of course it is. How else does Apple squeeze more profits out of a product line that is a fraction of what the iPhone pulls in? That’s the dynamic that Apple is operating under. So we get bare minimum ram, expensive to upgrade and non-upgradeable after purchase.
That’s my take, anyway.
My bigger issue with the ram situation is the inability to upgrade after purchase. This has relegated thousands of Macs to obsolescence when the OS eventually outpaces the 8gb limitations baked in to the base models.
It’s about $$$, of course it is. How else does Apple squeeze more profits out of a product line that is a fraction of what the iPhone pulls in? That’s the dynamic that Apple is operating under. So we get bare minimum ram, expensive to upgrade and non-upgradeable after purchase.
That’s my take, anyway.
That's not true. It's regular RAM. The difference is how the SOC addresses the RAM logically and how CPU and GPU have access to some "unified" parts of the RAM. Here is a quote from the iFixit M1 teardown.
I don't think revenue would fall. Firstly, more people would buy Macs, who are currently deterred by the outrageous upgrade prices.
Secondly, buyers would invest the same amount in upgrades to have better equipped Macs.
Mac sales are declining and Tim Apple is really surprised? Even Microsoft allows you to swap the SSD through a simple hatch in the back of the Surface Pro.
An upgrade from 256 GB to 2 TB costs $150, Apple charges an incredible $800!
8 is enough for me. I used to think I needed 16 to type messages on social media, but since I got this new MacBook Air, I've come to the conclusion that 8 is plenty. Especially with faster bus speeds and solid state storage. It takes no time at all to retrieve data from storage.
Or plenty of consumers believed 8GB was enough because of Apple's marketing
8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple
Following the unveiling of new MacBook Pro models last week, Apple surprised some with the introduction of a base 14-inch MacBook Pro with M3 chip,...
www.macrumors.com
Skyrocketing prices? Memory prices have been declining for years (look at the historical trend) and especially for the last few years due to the memory glut. You obviously don't pay attention to what Micron, Samsung, SK Hynix and other memory makers have been saying.
SK Hynix posts record US$1.4 billion loss amid chip market slump
The world’s No 2 DRAM maker is cutting output and capex as it awaits a recovery in the second half of the year.
www.scmp.com
South Korean chip maker SK Hynix reported its biggest quarterly loss on record, owing to plunging prices in memory chips, and stuck to plans to halve capital spending this year.
Slammed by prices of memory that have fallen by more than 50 per cent since their 2022 peak, Hynix is cutting output and capex as it awaits a recovery in the second half of the year.
Hynix, which supplies memory to Apple, reported an operating loss of 1.7 trillion won (US$1.4 billion) for the three months ended in December on a 38 per cent drop in revenue.
Press Center - Decline in DRAM ASP Narrows to 10~15% in 2Q23 with No End in Sight, Says TrendForce | TrendForce - Market research, price trend of DRAM, NAND Flash, LEDs, TFT-LCD and green energy, PV
TrendForce reports that several suppliers, such as Micron and SK hynix, have started scaling back DRAM production. The ASP of DRAM plunged 20% in 1Q23, and this price decline is predicted to slow down to 10~15% next quarter.
TrendForce reports that several suppliers, such as Micron and SK hynix, have started scaling back DRAM production. The ASP of DRAM plunged 20% in 1Q23, and this price decline is predicted to slow down to 10~15% next quarter. It’s uncertain whether or not demand will recover in 2H23. Therefore, the ASP of DRAM has continued to fall as inventory levels are high from the suppliers’ side, and prices will only rebound if there is a significant decrease in production.
If people have to depend on swap to get by then that means there isn't enough system memory. If too much swap memory is used and constantly, that can wear out/shorten the life of the SSD.
8GB is fine for light usage. But it's not very future-proof. AI/LLMs will need a lot of RAM, and I don't think Apple engineers will be able to solve this problem with software tricks.
That quote is a myth though: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.folklore.computers/c/mpjS-h4jpD8/m/9DW_VQVLzpkJ
This is my biggest issue. Yes, 8GB is still serviceable today. But to buy a brand new machine that is intended to last years with only 8GB is absurd. New machines should have a bit more than you need today to give them room for software updates to not turn them to e-waste right away. Buying a used 8GB machine, or nursing an old 8GB machine along to get a little more out of it is fine. Selling a brand new machine with only 8GB is just dumb.
But their marketing department said 1 apple ram is equal to 2 windows ram
...And yet Windows computers mostly start at 16GB for far less cost of a comparable Mac.
...how much more does Unified memory cost? It gets manufactured along with the CPU so no dealing with other vendors for the RAM. It's just more transistors in the SoC.
...are RAM prices sky rocketing? I don't really see it. 8GB more of RAM would cost what? $10 at the most?
...we all love swap memory, don't we? Not to mention all those extra writes to your non-replaceable SSD.
...in the end, RAM is cheap. It's not an expensive resource. The fact that Tim won't put an extra 8GB in base models is pure bottom-line profit.
That's disingenuous. They were not exactly "willing," more like effectively forced to develop an ecosystem in the late '90s because few 3rd parties wanted to develop anything for Mac thanks to its low marketshare. Fortunately for Apple SJ re-branded compelling software like Final Cut, iTunes, iDVD and developed hardware like the iPod and it turned into a gold mine. But to be sure, if SJ had not no 3rd party was going to support Apple products and Apple's historical contributions would now be reduced to a plaque at the Computer Hall of Fame right next to Wang Labs.
Tim Cook's business model, despite, or maybe because of Apple's recycling efforts, is to create as many short-lived e-waste products as possible. Apple can "sell" 8GB is enough, and maybe it is short term, but being non-upgradable, it definitely is not "future proof" except to people who only use their computer like it's 2010. In my experience updated software and OSes typically grow, not shrink, real life RAM needs (as opposed to minimum requirements).
That has zero to do with having an ecosystem. But also Apple Silicon is only a bit over 3 years old so there is 10 years of Intel where Apple never upped the RAM on entry level machines. Luckily some of those could be user upgraded. The others just become a door stop sooner than they should -- would gander the vast majority of old computers do not make it to recycling centers. Good for Apple profits, bad for common folk's wallets.
The desperation to blame Tim Cook for everything is strong here
"It's magical". "You're going to love it".
