Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it(macworld.com)
macworld.com
Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it
https://www.macworld.com/article/2130071/m3-macbook-pro-8gb-memory-too-little.html
408 comments
I think you missed the point - we're talking about computers marketed as "Pro" devices which should be able to handle "Pro" workloads.
8GB on the Airs is a completely different issue as these are not marketed as Pro devices.
Consumers place a lot of faith in Apple as a brand so when they go and purchase a "Macbook Pro" they should be able to assume Apple has their back and it's actually going to do what it says on the tin. It's 2023, memory demand is higher than it ever has been and selling a "Pro" computer thats destined to be living on swap so they can try squeeze another $200 out of you is pretty shitty honestly. And it's not like you can just upgrade it, you have to toss it out and get a whole new device.
8GB on the Airs is a completely different issue as these are not marketed as Pro devices.
Consumers place a lot of faith in Apple as a brand so when they go and purchase a "Macbook Pro" they should be able to assume Apple has their back and it's actually going to do what it says on the tin. It's 2023, memory demand is higher than it ever has been and selling a "Pro" computer thats destined to be living on swap so they can try squeeze another $200 out of you is pretty shitty honestly. And it's not like you can just upgrade it, you have to toss it out and get a whole new device.
> computers marketed as "Pro" devices
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Which is the problem in a nutshell. No one knows what it means.
The parent worked as a dev for a year with the machine and was happy with it. I am also a dev, and am still on a M1 8gb Air that I got in early 2021, and I'm very happy with it. Probably the best laptop I've ever had the pleasure to work on.
For my workload, I don't think the difference between a 8gb and 16gb machine would be measurable. Some people really would prefer the $200.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Which is the problem in a nutshell. No one knows what it means.
The parent worked as a dev for a year with the machine and was happy with it. I am also a dev, and am still on a M1 8gb Air that I got in early 2021, and I'm very happy with it. Probably the best laptop I've ever had the pleasure to work on.
For my workload, I don't think the difference between a 8gb and 16gb machine would be measurable. Some people really would prefer the $200.
We can talk about what "Pro" doesn't mean - a compromised, crippled machine that has to use swap memory from day 1.
https://youtu.be/hmWPd7uEYEY
So watch that and tell me again why you think the difference ‘isn’t measurable’.
Tell me after watching that video you think the 8gb machine which is performing up to 5x worse than the 16gb model is "Pro"
Imagine the reverse - if Apple had a new cpu that performed 5x better they would be screaming it from the rooftops. And yet they have absolutely no qualms selling a machine thats 5x worse performing on the base model compared to the $200 upgrade.
They are basically scamming us and people like you are defending them for it. They need to be shamed and people like you need to stop defending the trillion dollar company doing it.
It should be noted that I'm not saying they should sell the 16gb model for the 8gb price - I'm saying they shouldn't be selling 8gb in a pro model at all. Or at the very least, they need to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR to people buying these 8GB machines at the checkout page that they are far far worse performing than the 16GB machines and the SSD's will wear out quicker.
https://youtu.be/hmWPd7uEYEY
So watch that and tell me again why you think the difference ‘isn’t measurable’.
Tell me after watching that video you think the 8gb machine which is performing up to 5x worse than the 16gb model is "Pro"
Imagine the reverse - if Apple had a new cpu that performed 5x better they would be screaming it from the rooftops. And yet they have absolutely no qualms selling a machine thats 5x worse performing on the base model compared to the $200 upgrade.
They are basically scamming us and people like you are defending them for it. They need to be shamed and people like you need to stop defending the trillion dollar company doing it.
It should be noted that I'm not saying they should sell the 16gb model for the 8gb price - I'm saying they shouldn't be selling 8gb in a pro model at all. Or at the very least, they need to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR to people buying these 8GB machines at the checkout page that they are far far worse performing than the 16GB machines and the SSD's will wear out quicker.
Like others here I am a dev, I'm fine with 8Gb. I skimmed through the video and the measurable slowdown was in image intensive apps like Lightroom and Blender. Why exactly should I be subsidizing those users?
This is the problem with skipping through things like this - you missed the part about real world chrome performance. It’s okay to be happy with 8gb, but it doesn’t mean you are right. Ignorance may be bliss but try not to spread it
You know, instead of being rude and berating someone who makes a good faith effort to watch an 11 minute video to try and find your argument, you should instead just go ahead and just make your argument. I don't know why you'd expect me to spend my time trying to find a needle in your haystack.
You are the one arguing in bad faith to satisfy the cognitive dissonance created by being scammed buying a computer at way too high price considering its real-world performance in the configuration you got.
If anything, you are the one who really needs to prove why he feels the need to defend the indefensible commercial choices of an extremely rich company.
At best you are like a weirdo using short in 5°C winter and telling everyone it is fine and do not understand why everyone is telling him he is crazy and that must be uncomfortable. At worst you are the used car salesman minimizing every single problem the car he is selling to keep the price high.
In any case, your behavior is not normal nor commendable, you shouldn't be the one requesting better behavior from other people...
If anything, you are the one who really needs to prove why he feels the need to defend the indefensible commercial choices of an extremely rich company.
At best you are like a weirdo using short in 5°C winter and telling everyone it is fine and do not understand why everyone is telling him he is crazy and that must be uncomfortable. At worst you are the used car salesman minimizing every single problem the car he is selling to keep the price high.
In any case, your behavior is not normal nor commendable, you shouldn't be the one requesting better behavior from other people...
Don't you use docker or build tools? Those are what use of all the memory on my computer.
In that video, it looks like the 8gb starts swapping when running blender and processing photos Lightroom?! Those are the very definition of tasks requiring a memory upgrade, IMHO. The 8gb model is meant for web browsing, communication, watching YouTube or Netflix and the such. Light computer work.
Don’t get stuck on the Pro monitor, real Professionals simply buy more memory because they know they need it and they should be able to afford it. Apple offers the 8gb models for regular folk with light computing needs who like a nicer machine, be it called Air or Pro.
Don’t get stuck on the Pro monitor, real Professionals simply buy more memory because they know they need it and they should be able to afford it. Apple offers the 8gb models for regular folk with light computing needs who like a nicer machine, be it called Air or Pro.
I think it’s pretty clear that Pro Max stands for profit maximization. ;)
"Pro" usage doesn't mean docker. There are many "pro" workloads that work just fine with 8gb ram. You can get a lot of real work done with an 8gb machine that has terrific battery life, is great for travel, great screen, etc.
If you work on large C++/Rust projects you need dedicated build servers with ungodly amount of CPU/ram. A laptop cannot possibly compete with servers that draw 2000 watts each. Desktop PCs also blow laptops out of the water in terms of raw performance. And yet many professional developers have a MBP as their main device because apparently they don't need the extra performance a high end desktop delivers.
Somehow many people here believe that:
- an 8GB MBP is not pro
- a 16GB MBP is pro
- desktop with 1TB ram is unnecessary for pro use
Somehow their preferred device is the "pro" device and should be called "pro" and less capable and more capable machines are irrelevant.
If you work on large C++/Rust projects you need dedicated build servers with ungodly amount of CPU/ram. A laptop cannot possibly compete with servers that draw 2000 watts each. Desktop PCs also blow laptops out of the water in terms of raw performance. And yet many professional developers have a MBP as their main device because apparently they don't need the extra performance a high end desktop delivers.
Somehow many people here believe that:
- an 8GB MBP is not pro
- a 16GB MBP is pro
- desktop with 1TB ram is unnecessary for pro use
Somehow their preferred device is the "pro" device and should be called "pro" and less capable and more capable machines are irrelevant.
Again it comes down to the fact that 8GB means you are almost guaranteed to be on swap. Does it work? Sure. But there is nothing ‘Pro’ about that, it wears out your drive faster and gives suboptimal performance
Agreed. IMO the only reason why the 8GB model exists is so Apple can advertise the Macbook Pro line with a starting price that has lower margins than they would otherwise make and then charge anyone who actually wants to use the computer for a professional workload an extra $200-400.
I run a 3d printing business, design, manufacturing, CAD/CAM, designed my own marketing materials, website, etc etc from my 8G M2 Macbook Air, never once did I feel like I needed more RAM.
I just used the MacBook Air as an example because even at 8GB, it’s still an amazing machine. I know the $1600 MBP with 8GB is strange. It shouldn’t exist. But it does so Apple opened itself up for ridicule.
I wanted to download and local LLMs on my Macbook, but discovered that I just didn't have the RAM for this. Moreover I couldn't upgrade to handle the new use case, I'd need a whole new Macbook. But the cost of that new machine would be absurd.
To be clear I have no problem paying the Apple tax, the computers are worth it. The problem is that Apple has optimized the Apple tax in such a way it makes local AI applications impossible, which is a shame because they have such the best architectures for that use case.
To be clear I have no problem paying the Apple tax, the computers are worth it. The problem is that Apple has optimized the Apple tax in such a way it makes local AI applications impossible, which is a shame because they have such the best architectures for that use case.
This from the company found liable for deliberately slowing their stuff, for all their proprietary dongles, for getting rid of the headphone jack, etc. etc.
As much of a conversation killer calling people "sheep" can be, as someone who doesn't use their stuff, what is surprising about this?
As much of a conversation killer calling people "sheep" can be, as someone who doesn't use their stuff, what is surprising about this?
No it's not. A ton of programs used by regular people (Chrome etc.) are RAM hogs, if you are a dev, then Docker is also an egregious example. If you happen to play games (a big thing for average people), that 8GB will be shared between the CPU and the GPU. Even the Steam Deck, admittedly a budget device, comes with 16GB.
It's often mentioned that macOS is more frugal with RAM, a claim which I flat out found to be untrue. I regularly saw Dock and Finder leak and eat gigabytes of RAM each.
The unfortunate reality is that base Mac models always existed as an upsell. There were a few precious historical exceptions, most recently the M1 Mac, but that doesn't change this rule.
It's often mentioned that macOS is more frugal with RAM, a claim which I flat out found to be untrue. I regularly saw Dock and Finder leak and eat gigabytes of RAM each.
The unfortunate reality is that base Mac models always existed as an upsell. There were a few precious historical exceptions, most recently the M1 Mac, but that doesn't change this rule.
>No it's not. A ton of programs used by regular people (Chrome etc.) are RAM hogs, if you are a dev, then Docker is also an egregious example. If you happen to play games (a big thing for average people), that 8GB will be shared between the CPU and the GPU. Even the Steam Deck, admittedly a budget device, comes with 16GB.
That's why I said normal office workers and students. I never said 8GB is enough for devs. It wasn't enough for me. It was still manageable for that 1 year before Apple Silicon MBPs got released. But of course I upgraded to an M1 Pro 16GB as soon as it came out.
I just gifted a family member an M1 Air 8GB in late 2023. I felt very comfortable that it was enough for the work this person does on the computer.
PS. 8GB is perfectly fine for Chrome web browsing. You can have 50 tabs open and it'll still run smoothly. macOS does some magic with paging. Don't know how it does it. But never had an issue with 8GB and Chrome. It was always my IDE, Typescript, and docker that gave me RAM issues on 8GB.
That's why I said normal office workers and students. I never said 8GB is enough for devs. It wasn't enough for me. It was still manageable for that 1 year before Apple Silicon MBPs got released. But of course I upgraded to an M1 Pro 16GB as soon as it came out.
I just gifted a family member an M1 Air 8GB in late 2023. I felt very comfortable that it was enough for the work this person does on the computer.
PS. 8GB is perfectly fine for Chrome web browsing. You can have 50 tabs open and it'll still run smoothly. macOS does some magic with paging. Don't know how it does it. But never had an issue with 8GB and Chrome. It was always my IDE, Typescript, and docker that gave me RAM issues on 8GB.
> That's why I said normal office workers and students.
Costing 9 hundos a piece, Air is not something a regular company would buy for their employees.
They're more likely to buy a budget laptop in the 400-500 range which you can bet will do just fine for office work, and you can always upgrade it if necessary.
If a company really does need their employees to work a Mac, they will have to cough out a lot more for the 16GB version, and this is what the article calls corporate greed.
Costing 9 hundos a piece, Air is not something a regular company would buy for their employees.
They're more likely to buy a budget laptop in the 400-500 range which you can bet will do just fine for office work, and you can always upgrade it if necessary.
If a company really does need their employees to work a Mac, they will have to cough out a lot more for the 16GB version, and this is what the article calls corporate greed.
When I was in college, I interned as IT support at a large corporation. We were buying $1200 Lenovos for normal office workers and $2000 laptop workstations for the design engineers. You'd be surprised at how much money enterprises spend on each laptop.
I happen to think that the enterprise is an untapped market for Macs. Not tech offices. Other industries that run on Lenovos and Dells.
If I'm a small business, I still wouldn't buy $500 Windows laptops for my employees. I'd buy $750 M1 Airs. They last longer, "just work", and have fewer support issues.
I happen to think that the enterprise is an untapped market for Macs. Not tech offices. Other industries that run on Lenovos and Dells.
If I'm a small business, I still wouldn't buy $500 Windows laptops for my employees. I'd buy $750 M1 Airs. They last longer, "just work", and have fewer support issues.
> I'd buy $750 M1 Airs. They last longer, "just work", and have fewer support issues.
As an employee of a company that runs macbook fleets, hell no they don't. Every other year we have had to replace half our inventory because of the 2015 macbooks having faulty batteries that want to explode, and then the next generations being that terrible keyboard, where every single employee needed their entire top cover replaced at least once because the keyboard didn't even last a year.
Meanwhile at my previous company which ran those boring ugly dell "workstation" laptops with the fat ass batteries, Entire generations of older workstations were still in inventory because they just didn't die, and were stupidly easy to repair, and you didn't have to send them away for a month for something like "my N key doesn't work anymore" or "the battery we gave you will burn your house down"
I just don't get how people say "Macs are reliable", because the only laptops less reliable than my work macbooks have been a series of cost reduced dell laptops that screws would literally fall out of, except even when that happened, dell would send someone to come fix it the next day, in your home!
As an employee of a company that runs macbook fleets, hell no they don't. Every other year we have had to replace half our inventory because of the 2015 macbooks having faulty batteries that want to explode, and then the next generations being that terrible keyboard, where every single employee needed their entire top cover replaced at least once because the keyboard didn't even last a year.
Meanwhile at my previous company which ran those boring ugly dell "workstation" laptops with the fat ass batteries, Entire generations of older workstations were still in inventory because they just didn't die, and were stupidly easy to repair, and you didn't have to send them away for a month for something like "my N key doesn't work anymore" or "the battery we gave you will burn your house down"
I just don't get how people say "Macs are reliable", because the only laptops less reliable than my work macbooks have been a series of cost reduced dell laptops that screws would literally fall out of, except even when that happened, dell would send someone to come fix it the next day, in your home!
> 2015 macbooks having faulty batteries that want to explode, and then the next generations being that terrible keyboard, where every single employee needed their entire top cover replaced at least once because the keyboard didn't even last a year.
IIRC there was a recall/replacement program for those batteries as well as earlier generations of the butterfly keyboard. I'm not a fan of the butterfly keyboard, but Apple did replace it twice for free. The final revision fixed the reliability problems for me at least.
IIRC there was a recall/replacement program for those batteries as well as earlier generations of the butterfly keyboard. I'm not a fan of the butterfly keyboard, but Apple did replace it twice for free. The final revision fixed the reliability problems for me at least.
Nobody considers the final-gen intel MBPs with touchbar and stupid-ass keyboard to be reliable. M-series machines however, I have not heard of any issues with those aside from flaky MagSafe connectors.
Haven't heard the reports of spontaneous screen cracking? [0]
[0] https://www.makeuseof.com/m1-macbook-screens-cracking/
[0] https://www.makeuseof.com/m1-macbook-screens-cracking/
It's widely known that accessories like stick on camera covers can damage the screens of the new macbooks because they're designed with almost zero gap when shut. I work among a sea of macbooks and follow the macbook world rather closely and have never once heard of any common screen issue on the apple silicon models that didn't amount to someone having stuck something between the screen and the case when closing it.
There's loads of threads on Apple's own site, reddit, etc. of it happening. Some users have claimed it happened while the laptop was OPEN.
But hey, it's not like Apple has a history of denying problems, right?
But hey, it's not like Apple has a history of denying problems, right?
Apple has definitely had screen cracking issues in the past, and I believe it has been a covered repair/replacement.
Nope, first I’ve heard of it. Nor do I believe the person “it was just sitting there, it cracked just by looking at it funny!” Uh huh. Sure buddy.
IBM went to macs 8 years ago.
Sounds like you're just guessing what "a regular company" would do. The company I work for, as boring as any "regular" company, was buying M1 MBPs with 16GB and 512GB two years ago. For anyone who preferred a Mac to a PC laptop. I personally know of three companies that just buy a MBP for anyone asking. They're not cheaping out on some Latitude or Inspiron pos.
At work, the m1/m2 airs are exactly what we buy for most employees. The base spec is absolutely fine for most of our staff, and they’ll get 3+ years out of them.
Edit: devs get 32G pros though, and we loathe the extra RAM pricing on those. Cheap compared to the cost of a developer, though!
Edit: devs get 32G pros though, and we loathe the extra RAM pricing on those. Cheap compared to the cost of a developer, though!
> They're more likely to buy a budget laptop in the 400-500 range
I'd imagine the TCO on those bargain basement laptops is terrible, so I doubt they're really a big sell for corporate buyers.
I'd imagine the TCO on those bargain basement laptops is terrible, so I doubt they're really a big sell for corporate buyers.
Not necessarily - it depends how easily you can upgrade off-the shelf NVMs and RAM, and how much RAM its motherboard supports.
(A) the actual purchase cost for memory, whether its $200 or $20 is essentially irrelevant when it comes to TCO.
(B) In my experience corporate machines simply aren't upgraded. You get enough for the job when you order it. If you need more, you get a new machine and the old one is repurposed or retired if it's remaining usable life is short.
(B) In my experience corporate machines simply aren't upgraded. You get enough for the job when you order it. If you need more, you get a new machine and the old one is repurposed or retired if it's remaining usable life is short.
>In my experience corporate machines simply aren't upgraded.
Yeah. It would basically be insane for a company to nickel and dime laptop purchases and then pay an IT person to do bespoke upgrades. Like a lot of things that may seem sensible on a personal level where labor is cheap/free, they don't make sense when you're paying someone $50+ an hour to do them.
Yeah. It would basically be insane for a company to nickel and dime laptop purchases and then pay an IT person to do bespoke upgrades. Like a lot of things that may seem sensible on a personal level where labor is cheap/free, they don't make sense when you're paying someone $50+ an hour to do them.
Yes, you are completely right. In my experience though, the machines do get upgrades if someone insists, and the tech department prefers the easiest possible way.
I remember in a n org I worked a few years ago we got new laptops with SSDs instead of HDDs. Everybody was happy except the people who worked with a lot of data as the first SSDs were very small like 128 GB (still the amount of disk space you would get in an entry-level MBP 2019 I think). So we asked for an upgrade and they replaced our SSDs rather than replacing whole laptops. But I'm sure it's place-dependent.
I remember in a n org I worked a few years ago we got new laptops with SSDs instead of HDDs. Everybody was happy except the people who worked with a lot of data as the first SSDs were very small like 128 GB (still the amount of disk space you would get in an entry-level MBP 2019 I think). So we asked for an upgrade and they replaced our SSDs rather than replacing whole laptops. But I'm sure it's place-dependent.
$299 Inspirons these days come with NVMe storage and 6 core Intel CPUs
Still the 1366x768 displays that they were using 10 years ago?
Just a quick glance at the dell website shows me an Inspiron 15 w/ 8GB RAM, and a 256GB nvme for $279. I'm sure the panel isn't great, but it is 1080p.
It is an i3, but still... this is $279! Do some bargain hunting and you can find some pretty decent machines for <$500 now.
It is an i3, but still... this is $279! Do some bargain hunting and you can find some pretty decent machines for <$500 now.
That 'i3' runs circles around i7 laptop CPUs from just a couple of years ago
You do know what the "T" in "TCO" stands for right? Hint: it's not the price you paid for the hardware upfront.
Thing is, for regular office use, the M1 Air is perfectly fine, there's very little you gain if you go with the M3 Pro instead of the M1.
Funnily enough, I'm typing this from a 3 year old Thinkpad that I use for work, which has in all likelyhood a slower CPU than even the M1, but it's perfectly usable for dev work, because it has 64GB of RAM.
Funnily enough, I'm typing this from a 3 year old Thinkpad that I use for work, which has in all likelyhood a slower CPU than even the M1, but it's perfectly usable for dev work, because it has 64GB of RAM.
This article is about the PRO model. I doubt that normal should use PRO model. PRO model should have enough memory for a PRO person.
To be completely fair, base 14" MBP is only Pro in the name. That laptop has only 2 ports, supports only 1 external monitor, has a low core count CPU, and a relatively weak GPU, disqualifying it for any "Pro" work well before RAM (or storage) even enter the discussion.
On the flip side, the very same laptop has a much better display than competing MacBook Air, and better in a manner that is observable in its entirety in non-professional casual use: visually better scrolling of web pages and documents; easier to see in bright sun; much more superior HDR movie watching experience.
It also has much better laptop speakers - completely irrelevant for professional use (like music production), but very relevant for movie watching.
Base 14" MBP is merely a better Netflix machine than MacBook Air is.
What you said about Pro, and what the article says about Pro, is very fair and quite excellent in fact for, uhm, actual Pro laptops, which is Mx Pro/Max based machines, not the new base 14" MBP on an Mx (small one) chip.
What I indeed find perplexing is the fact that 2 default 14" Mx MBP configurations that do not require any changes (they often ship faster, being default is a tangible difference) aren't 8 GB 512 and 16 GB 512, but 8 GB 512 and 8 GB 1TB. That I find odd, because I think yes, a small subset of office users might find a low core count but bigger RAM version useful in practice (I'm thinking some very heavy spreadsheet hitters kind of office power users, managers probably), but virtually no one in that category would actually care to have 1TB of SSD with everything being web-based and/or stored on company's servers in corporate environment. That is indeed odd. But maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions for this one - it's easy to be lacking any actual stats or data - and it's appropriate as well. I don't know.
On the flip side, the very same laptop has a much better display than competing MacBook Air, and better in a manner that is observable in its entirety in non-professional casual use: visually better scrolling of web pages and documents; easier to see in bright sun; much more superior HDR movie watching experience.
It also has much better laptop speakers - completely irrelevant for professional use (like music production), but very relevant for movie watching.
Base 14" MBP is merely a better Netflix machine than MacBook Air is.
What you said about Pro, and what the article says about Pro, is very fair and quite excellent in fact for, uhm, actual Pro laptops, which is Mx Pro/Max based machines, not the new base 14" MBP on an Mx (small one) chip.
What I indeed find perplexing is the fact that 2 default 14" Mx MBP configurations that do not require any changes (they often ship faster, being default is a tangible difference) aren't 8 GB 512 and 16 GB 512, but 8 GB 512 and 8 GB 1TB. That I find odd, because I think yes, a small subset of office users might find a low core count but bigger RAM version useful in practice (I'm thinking some very heavy spreadsheet hitters kind of office power users, managers probably), but virtually no one in that category would actually care to have 1TB of SSD with everything being web-based and/or stored on company's servers in corporate environment. That is indeed odd. But maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions for this one - it's easy to be lacking any actual stats or data - and it's appropriate as well. I don't know.
I think Apple knows what they are doing. The 13" MacBook Pro with touchbar was another odd machine that "shouldn't exist" but it was their second-best selling laptop, presumably because of its form factor, features/performance, and price.
As Android dev (yes I use Android Studio) who works with MBA 2017, I think it's enough... to a certain degree. As long as you don't open >20 browser tabs and running Android emulator on the same time, which is pain in the a*.
Of course, 16 GB (or more) is nicer.
Of course, 16 GB (or more) is nicer.
> That's why I said normal office workers and students.
What? NO. 8GB is not enough for browsing and the proliferation of Electron apps these days. The solution shouldn't be constantly swapping, which is what all 8GB Apple devices do. This will lead to early SSD death and since the SSD is soldered on, that means the entire device is useless.
What? NO. 8GB is not enough for browsing and the proliferation of Electron apps these days. The solution shouldn't be constantly swapping, which is what all 8GB Apple devices do. This will lead to early SSD death and since the SSD is soldered on, that means the entire device is useless.
Well, Apple has been using SSDs for a long time now. Do you know Mac users personally where the SSD died before something else in the computer?
Yes I have seen this. The disk write speed randomly gets super slow and tons of stuff just locks up at random as many many programs assume it'll be fine to do little writes synchronously. The whole machine becomes totally unusable.
I see it on computers (and phones too) whose owners bought the smallest capacity to avoid spending money on something they didn't think they would use.
I see it on computers (and phones too) whose owners bought the smallest capacity to avoid spending money on something they didn't think they would use.
That's not what happens when an SSD reaches the write limit. It'll simply not let you write more data and becomes read only.
I've never had an SSD that just stopped allowing writes and returns an error. Instead it gets slower and slower until at some point attempting to write anything will just block forever. The process trying will be stuck in the I/O wait "D" state in Linux and be basically unkillable.
Edit: I should clarify this is what I've seen with nvme devices in particular.
Edit: I should clarify this is what I've seen with nvme devices in particular.
I have personally experienced this issue. It just gets very slow before slowly dying outright.
What on earth are you doing to make that happen? Either you’re use case is thrashing the SSD, you have a faulty part or you’re exaggerating.
Um, I don't know. Exaggeration? No, I only wish. Faulty part or not, it happened years after the purchase.
You can search this very forum where we posted stories when the M1s first came out, that they were churning through several percentage points of the life of the SSD within just a couple months. I think that was caused by a bug however
> I regularly saw Dock and Finder leak and eat gigabytes of RAM each
Make sure to view "Real mem" in Activity Monitor. That's the amount of data actually stored in your RAM, the rest being swapped out. That number can be quite small, even for apps that theoretically use a lot of memory.
I have found Docker to be an "actual" memory hog with not much of it being swapped out, but could imagine that it would be possible in the case of Finder.
Make sure to view "Real mem" in Activity Monitor. That's the amount of data actually stored in your RAM, the rest being swapped out. That number can be quite small, even for apps that theoretically use a lot of memory.
I have found Docker to be an "actual" memory hog with not much of it being swapped out, but could imagine that it would be possible in the case of Finder.
I don't know how macOS manages memory or reports its use, but how does the data having been swapped out change anything? If N pages of data of those processes have been swapped out, that means those processes have allocated and used that many pages of memory (plus any that are actually in RAM). The OS heuristics just decided it wasn't worthwhile to keep those particular pages in RAM under current circumstances.
If the processes just allocated a lot of memory and never touched it, it might be reasonable to say they don't actually use it because the OS might never actually reserve any physical resources for it. (Happens a lot e.g. in Linux with memory overcommit allowed by default and some processes allocating dozens of gigabytes of virtual memory, most of which they never actually use.)
But would those pages then count towards swap use either? Only dirty pages end up in swap. Unless macOS counts allocated but untouched pages towards used swap as committed resources.
edit: better wording
If the processes just allocated a lot of memory and never touched it, it might be reasonable to say they don't actually use it because the OS might never actually reserve any physical resources for it. (Happens a lot e.g. in Linux with memory overcommit allowed by default and some processes allocating dozens of gigabytes of virtual memory, most of which they never actually use.)
But would those pages then count towards swap use either? Only dirty pages end up in swap. Unless macOS counts allocated but untouched pages towards used swap as committed resources.
edit: better wording
Swap memory use is worse than actual memory use. If it just reserving a big block and not using it then fine whatever but if it's using a lot of swap that means ram is probably bottlenecking you since swap is slow.
It's of course slower than real RAM, but Apple are using pretty fast SSDs and possibly a novel model of swapping, making it effectively pretty good (certainly not perfect!).
Doesn't swapping to SSD make the laptop EOL come even quicker?
If Chrome is the only reason someone feels they need more RAM, maybe what they really need is a new browser. A web browser should never even enter the conversation when talking about hitting hardware limitations.
Once upon a time that was a reasonable position to hold.
But nowadays full dynamic applications are shipped in a browser tab, and a huge number of "desktop" applications are written in JavaScript using electron, so they're essentially an isolated chrome instance for running that app.
People talk about chrome being a resource hog, and maybe it is, but if you have dozens of JavaScript applications running in different tabs, then chrome is just taking the blame for the fact that it's essentially serving as the user application layer of your OS.
But nowadays full dynamic applications are shipped in a browser tab, and a huge number of "desktop" applications are written in JavaScript using electron, so they're essentially an isolated chrome instance for running that app.
People talk about chrome being a resource hog, and maybe it is, but if you have dozens of JavaScript applications running in different tabs, then chrome is just taking the blame for the fact that it's essentially serving as the user application layer of your OS.
Putting applications in the browser was a huge mistake that we're still paying for today.
> if you are a dev, then Docker is also an egregious example
I'm glad I stuck with embedded development. The biggest resource-hog I interact with regularly is GCC.
I can be productive on a P3 with 256M of RAM.
I'm glad I stuck with embedded development. The biggest resource-hog I interact with regularly is GCC.
I can be productive on a P3 with 256M of RAM.
Do you know of any recent benchmarks to back up this claim? It's entirely quantifiable.
Also, it's such a controversial thing you would think if the difference was so stark The Verge, Linus Tech Tips or Max Tech, etc. would, you know, actually measure it.
The only kinda objective side-by-side test I could find, on typical workloads, was this 2 year old video on the M1 which stated the 8gb did well on typical multitask workloads. For Chrome tab test the bottleneck was the internet speed, not RAM. Lightroom and Final Cut Export was slower, but typical multitasking workloads basically matched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h487I_5xOZU
Obviously things change so where does this stand today?
Also, it's such a controversial thing you would think if the difference was so stark The Verge, Linus Tech Tips or Max Tech, etc. would, you know, actually measure it.
The only kinda objective side-by-side test I could find, on typical workloads, was this 2 year old video on the M1 which stated the 8gb did well on typical multitask workloads. For Chrome tab test the bottleneck was the internet speed, not RAM. Lightroom and Final Cut Export was slower, but typical multitasking workloads basically matched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h487I_5xOZU
Obviously things change so where does this stand today?
The reality is that the exact same hardware uses less RAM on a base install of Windows than it does on a base install of macOS. Having used both hackintosh and real Mac booted on Windows (without bootcamp, as a "real" PC) I am certain of that fact.
And in usage I also find macOS and its Apps to more often than not actually take more RAM. It isn't a bad thing pe se, it often means more speed because more things are cached, available fast and the like.
However, it is quite annoying when Apple simultaneously pretend the contrary and at the same time upcharge for their soldered RAM in a greedy way. If anything, a "Pro" PC laptop in this price range will have not only at least 16GB as default but is highly likely to have 4-8GB for its dedicated GPU when with Apple Silicon, the RAM advertised has to be shared and any GPU activity lower even more what can comfortably be used as system memory.
The more time passes, the more Apple Silicon feels like the ultimate scam. At this you better have a very real need for battery life because it really does not make a lot of sense otherwise. In fact, if it is only autonomy that you need and not true mobility, it would be better to buy cheaper performance equivalent PC and buy one of those large carriable battery.
And in usage I also find macOS and its Apps to more often than not actually take more RAM. It isn't a bad thing pe se, it often means more speed because more things are cached, available fast and the like.
However, it is quite annoying when Apple simultaneously pretend the contrary and at the same time upcharge for their soldered RAM in a greedy way. If anything, a "Pro" PC laptop in this price range will have not only at least 16GB as default but is highly likely to have 4-8GB for its dedicated GPU when with Apple Silicon, the RAM advertised has to be shared and any GPU activity lower even more what can comfortably be used as system memory.
The more time passes, the more Apple Silicon feels like the ultimate scam. At this you better have a very real need for battery life because it really does not make a lot of sense otherwise. In fact, if it is only autonomy that you need and not true mobility, it would be better to buy cheaper performance equivalent PC and buy one of those large carriable battery.
I used a M1 with 16GB, and regularly had ~12GB in swap without noticing anything.
Once per day, I maybe got a slight 600ms hang when something was unexpectedly swapped in.
So I can imagine that 8GB will work okay, even if Chrome eats 30% of it.
Once per day, I maybe got a slight 600ms hang when something was unexpectedly swapped in.
So I can imagine that 8GB will work okay, even if Chrome eats 30% of it.
It’s not in my experience. “Normal users” are starting to run into this issue as I can anecdotally pass along (browsing, google suite, slight photoshop use, etc). I actually had lots of reservations before I “green lighted” those first gen M1 MacBook Airs at 8GB across family and friends. Unfortunately I unreasonably fell for the rather over hyped reviews across the board (“I want to believe”). It’s especially on me as my last private intel MBP before my “maxed out” M1 MBP wore out its on-board SSD after only 4 years and that one was large (1TB) with ample memory for the time (16GB). It’s running my personal “hack on Linux” from the SD card slot since so it’s somewhat cool but yeah..
My current work machine, a M2 Pro MBP at 32GB actually has less usable memory than my sluggish i9 MBP had - due to unified memory. We know the CPU/GPU is great but the memory story really isn’t, my system is palpably less responsive with a couple of documentation / bad web interface Safari tabs too many… RAM configurations are just prohibitively expensive even for “well off” companies / purchasers at this point so it’s often a struggle to fight for more.
I’ve been a big Apple / Mac fan and loyal customer since Panther but we shouldn’t turn a blind eye here.
These constrained memory configurations - even when streamlined OS / system software optimizations are in place (are they? still?) - are probably playing a good part in their great margins but they do need to go with the time (bloated websites and apps) as well of course their own stacks running on top.
My current work machine, a M2 Pro MBP at 32GB actually has less usable memory than my sluggish i9 MBP had - due to unified memory. We know the CPU/GPU is great but the memory story really isn’t, my system is palpably less responsive with a couple of documentation / bad web interface Safari tabs too many… RAM configurations are just prohibitively expensive even for “well off” companies / purchasers at this point so it’s often a struggle to fight for more.
I’ve been a big Apple / Mac fan and loyal customer since Panther but we shouldn’t turn a blind eye here.
These constrained memory configurations - even when streamlined OS / system software optimizations are in place (are they? still?) - are probably playing a good part in their great margins but they do need to go with the time (bloated websites and apps) as well of course their own stacks running on top.
Thank god I'm not the only one to know the truth. My experience is similar to yours and I agree on everything.
I started using Macs with Mac OS 9.2 but now I want out. The pricing is absurd and there is no way to circumvent that since no upgrade possible.
I don't care much about battery life/power consumption and the actual use case is overblown, if you get one of the powerful chips and push it, you are looking at 30-50W power consumption; so even with a 100kWh battery, we are talking 2-3H at best.
In other words, if you want to game, compute, encode, render, or whatever high performance task you are still going to need a cord anyway. The rest of low power task is actually done very nicely on much cheaper devices that have more than enough battery life (from cheap tablets, including iPads to Chromebooks).
Also macOS currently has a software problem in my opinion and Apple stupidly push for subscription out of greed. If I have to subscribe for my computing needs I might as well get the cheaper devices and use software that can run anywhere, including sub 500$ potato.
Apple has made a terrible mistake strategically; you can't have your cake and eat it too. If they want to sell expensive, limited hardware they need to have cheap non-subscription software that is best in class in enough categories. If their hardware is only useful to run competitors' software and subscription stuff they have to be competitive on the hardware price...
I started using Macs with Mac OS 9.2 but now I want out. The pricing is absurd and there is no way to circumvent that since no upgrade possible.
I don't care much about battery life/power consumption and the actual use case is overblown, if you get one of the powerful chips and push it, you are looking at 30-50W power consumption; so even with a 100kWh battery, we are talking 2-3H at best.
In other words, if you want to game, compute, encode, render, or whatever high performance task you are still going to need a cord anyway. The rest of low power task is actually done very nicely on much cheaper devices that have more than enough battery life (from cheap tablets, including iPads to Chromebooks).
Also macOS currently has a software problem in my opinion and Apple stupidly push for subscription out of greed. If I have to subscribe for my computing needs I might as well get the cheaper devices and use software that can run anywhere, including sub 500$ potato.
Apple has made a terrible mistake strategically; you can't have your cake and eat it too. If they want to sell expensive, limited hardware they need to have cheap non-subscription software that is best in class in enough categories. If their hardware is only useful to run competitors' software and subscription stuff they have to be competitive on the hardware price...
> It’s especially on me as my last private intel MBP before my “maxed out” M1 MBP wore out its on-board SSD after only 4 years and that one was large (1TB) with ample memory for the time (16GB).
I wonder how that's possible, and whether that's an outlier rather than a case of probable risk to SSDs. I've got the impression that it shouldn't be likely to wear out a modern or semi-modern SSD with any kinds of typical laptop workloads.
I daily drove a 500 GB off-the-shelf SSD in a 8 GB ThinkPad for ~8 years, and while it was for personal device, I used it a lot and even played games on it, often ran into swapping, even hibernated semi-regularly at times, etc., and there were never any signs of problems with the SSD.
4 years sounds like pretty bad luck.
I wonder how that's possible, and whether that's an outlier rather than a case of probable risk to SSDs. I've got the impression that it shouldn't be likely to wear out a modern or semi-modern SSD with any kinds of typical laptop workloads.
I daily drove a 500 GB off-the-shelf SSD in a 8 GB ThinkPad for ~8 years, and while it was for personal device, I used it a lot and even played games on it, often ran into swapping, even hibernated semi-regularly at times, etc., and there were never any signs of problems with the SSD.
4 years sounds like pretty bad luck.
It’s probably fully deterministic in that case. It was bought summer 2015 and the SSD intermittently started to have write errors end of 2019 so 4.5 years. Were you running a “hackintosh” on that one? macOS is way more memory intensive than Linux on desktop in my experience / usage pattern.
No, no macOS. I just wouldn't expect that the software would make such a difference. I also wasn't sparing with that machine, went gigabytes into the swap regularly, the SSD was often at 85-90% capacity, and yet I was nowhere near depleting the reserved blocks and had zero problems after years of use. (I can't remember when exactly I bought the SSD but I think it was 2015 or 2016 and I used it until 2023.)
I guess it's possible, it just sounded like individual bad luck to me. My impression has been that you really have to write a lot to wear out the expected life of a non-ancient SSD.
I guess it's possible, it just sounded like individual bad luck to me. My impression has been that you really have to write a lot to wear out the expected life of a non-ancient SSD.
The lifespan of a Macbook Pro will be increased if the RAM is upgraded from 8GB to 16GB, which is very unfriendly to the environment. Ironically, Apple's official website makes a big deal about how low-carbon they are.
Note: Customers cannot upgrade the RAM by themselves.
Note: Customers cannot upgrade the RAM by themselves.
I talked about that point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38215666
I have a 2011 Thinkpad T520 which still works fine, upgraded it to 16GB of RAM. There are high quality Windows laptops out there, but of course they cost as much as a Macbook.
I'm okay with laptops being sold with 8GB of RAM, but I'm not okay with artifically shortened lifespan caused by lack of upgradability. Manufacturers should be regulated to force them offer upgradeable RAM. I don't care what new technological innovations that may require to offer same speeds as current soldered RAM does, it's simply the right thing to do.
I'm okay with laptops being sold with 8GB of RAM, but I'm not okay with artifically shortened lifespan caused by lack of upgradability. Manufacturers should be regulated to force them offer upgradeable RAM. I don't care what new technological innovations that may require to offer same speeds as current soldered RAM does, it's simply the right thing to do.
>Manufacturers should be regulated to force them offer upgradeable RAM.
Disagreed. You can't make RAM upgradeable and have unified memory architecture that makes Apple Silicon good. Let's not regulate technology like this.
There were studies done that showed most people do not upgrade their RAM/storage even though they could. They just bought new computers. I can't find them now but you could probably find them if you dig around.
Disagreed. You can't make RAM upgradeable and have unified memory architecture that makes Apple Silicon good. Let's not regulate technology like this.
There were studies done that showed most people do not upgrade their RAM/storage even though they could. They just bought new computers. I can't find them now but you could probably find them if you dig around.
> You can't make RAM upgradeable and have unified memory architecture
Silicon Graphics did it in the 90s, x86 laptops do something similar but it's not true UMA AFAIU mostly due to software / graphics API limitations.
> that makes Apple Silicon good.
Good interplay between CPU and GPU, the major advantage of UMA, does nothing for raw CPU performance. What I find attractive about Apple silicon is that it has very high performance, high efficiency CPU cores. Nothing to do with UMA.
Soldered RAM can be somewhat higher speed and lower energy than replaceable, I think that's the main real advantage. Still, I wouldn't want it.
Silicon Graphics did it in the 90s, x86 laptops do something similar but it's not true UMA AFAIU mostly due to software / graphics API limitations.
> that makes Apple Silicon good.
Good interplay between CPU and GPU, the major advantage of UMA, does nothing for raw CPU performance. What I find attractive about Apple silicon is that it has very high performance, high efficiency CPU cores. Nothing to do with UMA.
Soldered RAM can be somewhat higher speed and lower energy than replaceable, I think that's the main real advantage. Still, I wouldn't want it.
>x86 laptops do something similar but it's not true UMA AFAIU mostly due to software / graphics API limitations.
They don't. They pre-allocate a portion of the memory to the iGPU and the CPU can't access that memory. It's not nearly the same unified memory we're talking about.
>Good interplay between CPU and GPU, the major advantage of UMA, does nothing for raw CPU performance. What I find attractive about Apple silicon is that it has very high performance, high efficiency CPU cores. Nothing to do with UMA.
I didn't imply that unified memory is the only thing that makes Apple Silicon good. Of course everything else has to be good too. But unified memory is a big part of Apple Silicon. Furthermore, going forward, UMA has real advantages over non-UMA architectures for LLMs.
They don't. They pre-allocate a portion of the memory to the iGPU and the CPU can't access that memory. It's not nearly the same unified memory we're talking about.
>Good interplay between CPU and GPU, the major advantage of UMA, does nothing for raw CPU performance. What I find attractive about Apple silicon is that it has very high performance, high efficiency CPU cores. Nothing to do with UMA.
I didn't imply that unified memory is the only thing that makes Apple Silicon good. Of course everything else has to be good too. But unified memory is a big part of Apple Silicon. Furthermore, going forward, UMA has real advantages over non-UMA architectures for LLMs.
> They pre-allocate a portion of the memory to the iGPU and the CPU can't access that memory
I don't recall the details, yes there's a BIOS setting to assign memory to the GPU, but that doesn't actually limit the memory used by the GPU. With any current OS and driver, the actual amount of memory used is set dynamically at runtime. The rest is as I said an API (OpenGL / DirectX pre 12) limitation.
https://docplayer.net/88302897-Memory-management-in-vulkan-a...
Page 20:
Memory types: AMD APU
● Memory is really unified – all heaps are equally fast.
Meaning the application can allocate a buffer on such a heap, load/generate some data into it, and "hand it over to" (just means promise not to change it concurrently without notifying) the GPU. No copies, the GPU can now use it. [In contrast, different memory types on non-UMA systems are best for uploads (to GPU), downloads (from GPU), frequent use, one-time use... of buffers]
So, what's left of Apple's UMA advantage is, I don't know? Maybe a unified cache. Not a big deal, graphics working sets are much larger than any L3 cache. Oh, and marketing language.
I don't recall the details, yes there's a BIOS setting to assign memory to the GPU, but that doesn't actually limit the memory used by the GPU. With any current OS and driver, the actual amount of memory used is set dynamically at runtime. The rest is as I said an API (OpenGL / DirectX pre 12) limitation.
https://docplayer.net/88302897-Memory-management-in-vulkan-a...
Page 20:
Memory types: AMD APU
● Memory is really unified – all heaps are equally fast.
Meaning the application can allocate a buffer on such a heap, load/generate some data into it, and "hand it over to" (just means promise not to change it concurrently without notifying) the GPU. No copies, the GPU can now use it. [In contrast, different memory types on non-UMA systems are best for uploads (to GPU), downloads (from GPU), frequent use, one-time use... of buffers]
So, what's left of Apple's UMA advantage is, I don't know? Maybe a unified cache. Not a big deal, graphics working sets are much larger than any L3 cache. Oh, and marketing language.
> Soldered RAM can be somewhat higher speed and lower energy than replaceable
Can we have one piece of soldered RAM and one slot to add more RAM later on though? (at the cost of possibly unmatched speed and other stuff that happens when you mix and match RAM as you like)
Can we have one piece of soldered RAM and one slot to add more RAM later on though? (at the cost of possibly unmatched speed and other stuff that happens when you mix and match RAM as you like)
You can. My Thinkpad T14 Gen1 AMD has that. I'd prefer two sticks over soldered + stick. Also, memory bandwidth is usually kind of crap unless you add that memory stick in the slot. Typically 25-40% (GPU) performance difference in games between stick and no stick. At least the 16 GB -> 32 GB factory upgrade was cheap, they can't charge crazy prices because people would just buy the RAM separately.
> Manufacturers should be regulated to force them offer upgradeable RAM
Or just don't buy LUXURY Macs. Yes, they are luxury goods, they are Louis Vuittons of the laptop world.
You and a bunch of people don't buy Macs with 8GB and complain a lot and Apple will start selling them with 16GB.
But this will never happen because people will keep buying Macs because of the panache and swagger that owning and using a Mac give them.
Or just don't buy LUXURY Macs. Yes, they are luxury goods, they are Louis Vuittons of the laptop world.
You and a bunch of people don't buy Macs with 8GB and complain a lot and Apple will start selling them with 16GB.
But this will never happen because people will keep buying Macs because of the panache and swagger that owning and using a Mac give them.
Bizarre bitterness. You really think nobody is buying Macs on their merit?
Maybe you're European and apple products cost a lot more where you live?
In the states, base model MacBook Airs are frequently ~$800 on sale.
You can get an official refurb MacBook Air or Pro with 16GB/1TB for ~$1300 from Apple's website right now.
Those machines are priced competitively when compared to Dell XPS, new ThinkPads, etc.
They also have much better battery life, screens, and overall build quality compared to those machines.
Also MacOS is, for all its faults, normie-accessible unlike Linux and ad-free unlike Windows.
Maybe you're European and apple products cost a lot more where you live?
In the states, base model MacBook Airs are frequently ~$800 on sale.
You can get an official refurb MacBook Air or Pro with 16GB/1TB for ~$1300 from Apple's website right now.
Those machines are priced competitively when compared to Dell XPS, new ThinkPads, etc.
They also have much better battery life, screens, and overall build quality compared to those machines.
Also MacOS is, for all its faults, normie-accessible unlike Linux and ad-free unlike Windows.
macOS market share is actually 20% on desktop/laptops despite Macs selling only about ~8-10% of total PCs worldwide.
------
So that's older Macs still in use and doesn't mean that the current 8GB Macs is still trending that way.
Yes, there is no guarantee that Macs are trending that way. However, I have a feeling that Apple Silicon Macs, even with 8GB, will last very longer than Intel Macs with the same amount of memory in the past.
Ten years ago, Macbook Pro was equipped with 4GB RAM. Back then, the Macbook Pro hardware led the PC industry. Pro is a real Pro. today, you’re saying that it’s enough.
Macbook Pro hardware still leads the industry in my opinion. And has a bigger lead than ever.
CPU benchmarks will tell us the fact.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Maybe there's just a lot of Hackintoshes
How is increasing the lifespan of the MBP more unfriendly to the environment??
No it isn't, because of lazy developers that keep pushing Electron apps for those office workers and students.
I use Electron apps (VSCode, Slack, etc). They are bloated compared to native apps, but that running a few of them somehow makes 8GB "not enough" is overblown. You get by just fine.
It's wanting to run big VMs that is the real pain point with 8GB.
It's wanting to run big VMs that is the real pain point with 8GB.
Native apps aren't automatically less bloated, take Xcode vs VSCode for instance. Native apps might just have more optimization potential, but that doesn't mean that the potential is realized. The most efficient applications are 10 or 20 years old, running on modern hardware ;)
>Native apps aren't automatically less bloated, take Xcode vs VSCode for instance
What about them? XCode is quite efficient with memory, and it by definition doesn't pass everything through a interpret+JIT for a higher level language.
What about them? XCode is quite efficient with memory, and it by definition doesn't pass everything through a interpret+JIT for a higher level language.
IME (and I work with both every day), Xcode is slower for almost every UI interaction than VSCode on the same machine. It already starts with Xcode's extremely slow startup, just now it took 15(!) seconds for Xcode to cold-start. And that's on a 32 GBytes M1 Pro.
It really depends on the size of the workspace your loading.
Try opening some heinously large project with 100+ dylibs (react-native) compared against a lean, statically linked single module workspace. You can have them open side by side and it’s like experiencing hell and heaven simultaneously.
Try opening some heinously large project with 100+ dylibs (react-native) compared against a lean, statically linked single module workspace. You can have them open side by side and it’s like experiencing hell and heaven simultaneously.
Getting by today, doesn't mean one gets by tomorrow.
Why, are we waiting something drastic in the next 4-5 years before the users gets the new model?
Because that is forced obsolence and damaging for the environment, the computer from today should be perfectly usable in 4-5 years.
The upgrade treadmill from the 20 century computers is no longer relevant for most users, besides storage.
The upgrade treadmill from the 20 century computers is no longer relevant for most users, besides storage.
>Because that is forced obsolence and damaging for the environment, the computer from today should be perfectly usable in 4-5 years.
And for most users it will be. If we're talking "forced obsolence" Apple is probably the last to blame, given their stuff retains high ratio of original-vs-resale value (meaning they have long second hand careers).
And for most users it will be. If we're talking "forced obsolence" Apple is probably the last to blame, given their stuff retains high ratio of original-vs-resale value (meaning they have long second hand careers).
That used to be true. It is not at all true for the recent Macs. The Intel Macs with soldered everything already old a worse value but the low-end Apple Silicon Macs seems to be even worse.
It is unsurprising considering the limitation, the configuration is set in stone and any problem, especially on the storage means the end of the machine.
If you believe that will not make their second-hand value and their longevity much worse, I don't know what to tell you. It is already happening. Even relatively recent Intel macs are worthless if they were not top of the line with lots of storage and RAM. The only thing keeping somewhat of a value is what Apple does not want to sell anymore: big display iMacs (27"). But that's really not surprising since half the value comes from being a good display in the first place...
On top of all that, even low-end hardware is good enough for basic task, so second-hand inventory is piling up, especially at the low end. Macs are nice but old Macs not that much nicer than cheap Huawei's and the likes...
If you believe that will not make their second-hand value and their longevity much worse, I don't know what to tell you. It is already happening. Even relatively recent Intel macs are worthless if they were not top of the line with lots of storage and RAM. The only thing keeping somewhat of a value is what Apple does not want to sell anymore: big display iMacs (27"). But that's really not surprising since half the value comes from being a good display in the first place...
On top of all that, even low-end hardware is good enough for basic task, so second-hand inventory is piling up, especially at the low end. Macs are nice but old Macs not that much nicer than cheap Huawei's and the likes...
I don't really have a problem with 8GB for the base model. There are plenty of people buying Macs, including Pro versions, that won't need more than that.
My issue is the heavy price increase for higher RAM amounts. A $2500 machine should come with at least 64GB.
My issue is the heavy price increase for higher RAM amounts. A $2500 machine should come with at least 64GB.
Exactly. They wouldn't be selling it if people weren't buying it.
The fact is, 8 GB delivers perfectly speedy performance for many Pro workloads.
It's not enough if you're a dev running VM's, but Pro doesn't mean it's for developers only. There are a lot of other types of professionals out there, where their needs are e.g around CPU not memory.
The fact is, 8 GB delivers perfectly speedy performance for many Pro workloads.
It's not enough if you're a dev running VM's, but Pro doesn't mean it's for developers only. There are a lot of other types of professionals out there, where their needs are e.g around CPU not memory.
Actually, I don't even have a problem with $2500 coming with 16GB. I have a problem with most higher memory options not being standard retail SKUS, which means they rarely go on sale and have to BTO with longer wait times.
8GB is way too little for office workers. Outlook, MS Teams and the Office 365 integrations consume a lot of memory. Especially if you are collaborating in big presentations with a few people. My previous Dell 16GB office laptop frequently ran to its limits with regular office work.
Apple geeks eating up and justifying anything and everything that apple throws at them is hilarious to see. It takes 50-60$ for a 8GB stick and people justifying that 200$ markup because Apple needs to make profit too. Is it Stockholm syndrome I dont know.
Well, on the other hand, they got AS great performance, amazing battery life, tremendous snapiness, no noise, and so on, first - which you didn't get for a while on the Windows laptop world, even for comparable priced machines, even if they had double the RAM. Not even getting into the trackpad, build quality and materials over cheapo plastic, and so on.
For personal and work purposes I use both Apple and Windows laptops and its no comparison on those areas really, even if you go for the nice one's (Lenovo, Dell Latitude, Surface, etc). And if you add the other configurations, you get closer to the MBP price.
Eg. Latitude 7440 laptop was the one left after filtering for all the "high end" attributes (> 8GB mem, highest intel processor available for the series, FHD+ etc). Configured at: 14", 16GB, the highest processor configuration they offer, 14.0-in. display Full HD+ (which is just 1920X1200, way worse than "retina") goes for $1,659.00 on Dell's website.
I'd get the M1 over that anyday, even if I had to pay $100-$200 extra for the 16GB option. Especially since it will keep its resale value way better.
For personal and work purposes I use both Apple and Windows laptops and its no comparison on those areas really, even if you go for the nice one's (Lenovo, Dell Latitude, Surface, etc). And if you add the other configurations, you get closer to the MBP price.
Eg. Latitude 7440 laptop was the one left after filtering for all the "high end" attributes (> 8GB mem, highest intel processor available for the series, FHD+ etc). Configured at: 14", 16GB, the highest processor configuration they offer, 14.0-in. display Full HD+ (which is just 1920X1200, way worse than "retina") goes for $1,659.00 on Dell's website.
I'd get the M1 over that anyday, even if I had to pay $100-$200 extra for the 16GB option. Especially since it will keep its resale value way better.
The difference is that you got an Intel CPU instead of an AMD one that's built on a smaller node and has a far more efficient GPU.
Those AMD CPUs are still not as efficient in those aspects in PC laptops
It probably costs Apple way less than $50-$60 for 8GB. The margins must be very high.
I understand the business aspect of this for Apple. I'm not mad at them. I'll pay $200 to upgrade the RAM so that I can keep using macOS and have a well-built laptop that makes no noise. Apple knows this. It's just good business in my opinion. But I guess to you, I'm an Apple geek who has Stockholm syndrome.
I understand the business aspect of this for Apple. I'm not mad at them. I'll pay $200 to upgrade the RAM so that I can keep using macOS and have a well-built laptop that makes no noise. Apple knows this. It's just good business in my opinion. But I guess to you, I'm an Apple geek who has Stockholm syndrome.
Well... yeah, your behavior is that of someone who has Stockholm syndrome. I'm not saying this to be hostile, but there's a world of difference between "I accept this because it's the best option for me despite the drawbacks" and "I don't mind getting price gouged because the big tech company has to make money somehow". We all make business decisions that aren't ideal (because we have to), but you don't need to lick the company boot while you're at it.
So disagreeing with someone else’s behaviour when choosing their tech means they have Stockholm syndrome? No, you may not think you’re being hostile, but you are.
> So disagreeing with someone else’s behaviour when choosing their tech means they have Stockholm syndrome?
No, they perfectly explained why that isn't the case. Please read the post carefully instead of knee jerk responding.
No, they perfectly explained why that isn't the case. Please read the post carefully instead of knee jerk responding.
> but you don't need to lick the company boot while you're at it.
That’s hostile. It’s obnoxious as suggesting a difference of opinion is “Stockholm syndrome”. It the same as saying “I’m not being rude, but you’re an idiot”. Yeah, you’re being rude.
That’s hostile. It’s obnoxious as suggesting a difference of opinion is “Stockholm syndrome”. It the same as saying “I’m not being rude, but you’re an idiot”. Yeah, you’re being rude.
At its highest point it wouldn't even be $50 for 8GB LPDDR. At its lowest point it would be close to $20. You can add a maximum of $5 for testing and packaging within SoC.
I dislike Apple - especially the way they rewrite history to remove Commodore/ Spectrum/Acorn/Atari - is disgraceful.
HOWEVER, my M1 Air (with 8GB RAM) has and continues to be a great little machine for web browsing, email, Discord and writing. It can comes in clutch occasionally for coding.
Value? No, it's not great value. I bought a $500 Lenovo with 1TB SSD and 16GB RAM as a backup machine and the only areas where the M1 Air beats it are in the trackpad. The Lenovo even has a sleep mode which actually works and the battery life is fantastic. Even the screen is a toss-up - the OLED screen on the Lenovo is in a different class to the Apple screen in some ways but it isn't as bright so less good if you're working in direct sunlight.
HOWEVER, my M1 Air (with 8GB RAM) has and continues to be a great little machine for web browsing, email, Discord and writing. It can comes in clutch occasionally for coding.
Value? No, it's not great value. I bought a $500 Lenovo with 1TB SSD and 16GB RAM as a backup machine and the only areas where the M1 Air beats it are in the trackpad. The Lenovo even has a sleep mode which actually works and the battery life is fantastic. Even the screen is a toss-up - the OLED screen on the Lenovo is in a different class to the Apple screen in some ways but it isn't as bright so less good if you're working in direct sunlight.
You are off in a parallel universe if sleep mode on your Mac is a failing comparison point here.
[deleted]
I like my mac book pro but I'm not eating it up or justifying it. I'm just biting my tongue and paying it, knowing I get roughly 2x as much time out of my apple devices as I do out of cheaper PC/Android stuff. Plus I need a mac for some of my work that is proprietary.
Their argument seems like CPU binning for me, except less crazy? (lesser CPU takes more procedure to fuse out the disabled cores)
I bought a think pad just a couple years ago. I had to upgrade it to 16G. I had to upgrade the screen to actually be readable. The whole thing was deceptively priced as being on a permanent sale. I don’t get why Apple is the target here, they’re way better than other companies. 16G is starting to be standard for sure, but Apple is only a little behind the times in that regard.
The M2 Air 8Gb starts at $1100, not $900. And it's €1300 in Europe. It's not a cheap laptop at all.
> are simply unmatched by anything in the PC world at that price - sometimes any price
Technically, comparable Windows laptops do exist, but hardware vendors don’t want to sell them.
For some reason, hardware vendors really want to sell Intel CPUs, and discrete GPUs. Both choices are suboptimal for most people, because modern AMD chips are more power efficient than Intel, and their integrated GPUs are pretty good by now.
If I wanted a new laptop today, I would look for a model with Ryzen 7 7840U. The chip has 8 Zen4 CPU cores, 12 RDNA3 GPU cores, and 15-30W TDP. Quietness, coolness, performance, and battery life should be very comparable to Apple’s M1 laptops.
Sadly, most laptops which have Ryzen 7 7840U include soldered LPDDR5[x] memory, but there’re couple models with DDR5 SO-DIMM slots: Framework 13, and HP EliteBook 845 G10.
BTW, I have an older laptop with Ryzen 5 5600U. It’s a generation older, but CPU performance and power efficiency are already good there. GPU performance is not great as GCN5 cores are way slower than RDNA3.
Technically, comparable Windows laptops do exist, but hardware vendors don’t want to sell them.
For some reason, hardware vendors really want to sell Intel CPUs, and discrete GPUs. Both choices are suboptimal for most people, because modern AMD chips are more power efficient than Intel, and their integrated GPUs are pretty good by now.
If I wanted a new laptop today, I would look for a model with Ryzen 7 7840U. The chip has 8 Zen4 CPU cores, 12 RDNA3 GPU cores, and 15-30W TDP. Quietness, coolness, performance, and battery life should be very comparable to Apple’s M1 laptops.
Sadly, most laptops which have Ryzen 7 7840U include soldered LPDDR5[x] memory, but there’re couple models with DDR5 SO-DIMM slots: Framework 13, and HP EliteBook 845 G10.
BTW, I have an older laptop with Ryzen 5 5600U. It’s a generation older, but CPU performance and power efficiency are already good there. GPU performance is not great as GCN5 cores are way slower than RDNA3.
> 8GB is still good enough for office workers and students.
That's not the target users for the "MacBook Pro" series.
That's not the target users for the "MacBook Pro" series.
The 8GB 14" MBP M3 is a strange one. I personally don't think this SKU should even exist. I think the 15" MBA can replace the now-deprecated 13" MBP Touchbar in the lineup.
Apple did open themselves up to ridicule for putting 8GB on a $1600 "Pro" laptop.
Apple did open themselves up to ridicule for putting 8GB on a $1600 "Pro" laptop.
I don't see why a user who only did light tasks on their Mac wouldn't want a 120hz screen.
I'll never understand the Apple effect. Neglecting core components of their hardware that would not hurt their margin to spec acceptably from the start, ripping off their customers to upgrade to bare minimum ... and their customers keep defending them for that?
8GB on MBA may have been fine. But 8GB on MBP?
> On a slightly related note: $/GB for RAM hit a wall starting in 2011
Now that's just disingenuous, it's a log scale and it shows that memory prices fell 40% from 2012 to 2022.
Apple charges $200 to upgrade M1 Macbook Air from 8GB to 16GB.
A comparable 8GB stick of DDR4-3600 costs $25 retail.
Now that's just disingenuous, it's a log scale and it shows that memory prices fell 40% from 2012 to 2022.
Apple charges $200 to upgrade M1 Macbook Air from 8GB to 16GB.
A comparable 8GB stick of DDR4-3600 costs $25 retail.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. The RAM is (or extremely close to being) part of the package. A stick of RAM is a commodity part. The M-series package isn’t.
Which explains why they had the exact same RAM upgrade pricing since the mid 2000s when they were using off the shelf Intel processors right? It's basically always been $200 extra dollars for the next step up above base for Apple RAM, even when they were user replaceable sticks that you could find compatible commodity versions of!
You can bend over backwards all you want, but if you're going to claim that Apple's Unified Memory costs 10x as much as commodity RAM in terms of BOM, you better bring some receipts.
It doesn't cost apple $200 to go from 8GB to 16GB, it's likely 1/10th of that since they are ordering processors in the millions at the lowest point available in silicon manufacturing. I've never had an apple product fail either and I can't say that for other laptops (hp/dell) I still have my MacBook pro from 2011, using it as a NAS (running linux tho) my Dell from that year is long since dead.
the point is that pure greed keeps them from doubling it and giving people a bit more power.
I think the best reaction would be shame. Just a big round of shame for a trillion dollar company being so greedy to cripple their top equipment. Tech’s stagnated for over a decade and largely because of greed and at the expense of innovation.
Prove me wrong? Do something genuinely new, like a mass produced cpu on germanium. Make a modern OS that’s a successor to unix-and plan9. Edit-Or at least a moddable iphone that can plug into a monitor/keyboard/mouse.
Edit2-shame the company though, not the people who walk around carrying iphones or other apple devices. The company is the problem here.
Prove me wrong? Do something genuinely new, like a mass produced cpu on germanium. Make a modern OS that’s a successor to unix-and plan9. Edit-Or at least a moddable iphone that can plug into a monitor/keyboard/mouse.
Edit2-shame the company though, not the people who walk around carrying iphones or other apple devices. The company is the problem here.
Good luck! People have been trying to shame Apple for their premium pricing since the day they started selling computers, and it has never done a thing to change their strategy nor sales. I think the issue is that a lot of tech people don’t fully understand what Apple is selling, what value is there, and why it appeals to so many consumers, despite whatever reasons we think we have. Nobody needs to prove you wrong, because most consumers do not know and do not care what germanium and plan9 are. Most consumers do not want to mod their phone or plug it into a keyboard & mouse, heck most programmers don’t even want that.
Framing it as greed and lack of innovation seems like a not well thought out argument. Which companies are you buying tech from that aren’t aiming for a profit, and wouldn’t change more if they could? As a dev I feel like I’ve been forced out of the Apple ecosystem, and I’m having a hard time being a fan these days, but I wouldn’t dare claim they’re not innovating. The M-series is a massive innovation and challenging everyone, and it follows behind literally world-changing innovations like iphone. For its time, OSX was an innovative successor to unix built on unix. They have a long list and a solid history of innovation that continues to this day, despite always having had seemingly high prices on RAM, so let’s look for a better argument why they should offer it for less.
Framing it as greed and lack of innovation seems like a not well thought out argument. Which companies are you buying tech from that aren’t aiming for a profit, and wouldn’t change more if they could? As a dev I feel like I’ve been forced out of the Apple ecosystem, and I’m having a hard time being a fan these days, but I wouldn’t dare claim they’re not innovating. The M-series is a massive innovation and challenging everyone, and it follows behind literally world-changing innovations like iphone. For its time, OSX was an innovative successor to unix built on unix. They have a long list and a solid history of innovation that continues to this day, despite always having had seemingly high prices on RAM, so let’s look for a better argument why they should offer it for less.
I think the shame is more around calling it a “MacBook PRO” and getting people to pay premium for something that is clearly not to their own high standards and carefully curated image for the “PRO” line of a product.
It’s like in the 90s when the base ford mustang became a poorly made vehicle with little power that looked like a sports car but really they selling out and taking advantage of their customers.
I would have more respect for Apple if they just charged $200 more for the base and put 16GB of ram it instead passing off machines with insufficient amount of ram as a premium model of their devices.
It’s like in the 90s when the base ford mustang became a poorly made vehicle with little power that looked like a sports car but really they selling out and taking advantage of their customers.
I would have more respect for Apple if they just charged $200 more for the base and put 16GB of ram it instead passing off machines with insufficient amount of ram as a premium model of their devices.
> ... it has never done a thing to change their strategy nor sales.
Look up their Mac sales figure - it's down. And I do believe it is because consumers aren't stupid and recognize that the new Macs have planned obsolescence built-in with their soldered RAM and SSDs.
The Gaslighting is also high with Apple claiming that their "8GB equals 16GB" because they are Apple:
> Comparing our memory to other system's memory actually isn't equivalent, because of the fact that we have such an efficient use of memory, and we use memory compression, and we have a unified memory architecture. Actually, 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems. We just happen to be able to use it much more efficiently. - https://www.macrumors.com/2023/11/08/8gb-ram-m3-macbook-pro-...
Look up their Mac sales figure - it's down. And I do believe it is because consumers aren't stupid and recognize that the new Macs have planned obsolescence built-in with their soldered RAM and SSDs.
The Gaslighting is also high with Apple claiming that their "8GB equals 16GB" because they are Apple:
> Comparing our memory to other system's memory actually isn't equivalent, because of the fact that we have such an efficient use of memory, and we use memory compression, and we have a unified memory architecture. Actually, 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems. We just happen to be able to use it much more efficiently. - https://www.macrumors.com/2023/11/08/8gb-ram-m3-macbook-pro-...
> (...) and we have a unified memory architecture.
If Apple laptops have to use their system memory for their graphics stuff, doesn't this mean that their 8GB of RAM leaves even less memory available for applications? I mean, even the cheapest graphics cards out there ship with a few GB of dedicated memory.
If Apple laptops have to use their system memory for their graphics stuff, doesn't this mean that their 8GB of RAM leaves even less memory available for applications? I mean, even the cheapest graphics cards out there ship with a few GB of dedicated memory.
> Look up their Mac sales figure - it’s down. And I do believe it is because consumers aren’t stupid and recognize that the new Macs have planned obsolescence built-in with their soldered RAM and SSDs.
Mac isn’t the only product they sell where the storage prices are higher than the alternatives and higher than the cost of the underlying hardware. All of Apple’s products come with SSD and RAM upgrades that are above market rates and above the competition.
I don’t think consumers are stupid either, I think they know the storage upgrades are marked up, and still buy Apple products, for other reasons. I bought Apple laptops and was happy about them despite their cost - they were truly great machines and outshined the cheaper non-Apple laptops I’ve had.
Anyway, Mac sales have been down for a while because what would have been laptop and desktop sales are being now replaced with tablets and phones. Apple’s strategy hasn’t changed yet, and their overall sales and revenue on premium priced products haven’t show any sign of downturn yet.
Mac isn’t the only product they sell where the storage prices are higher than the alternatives and higher than the cost of the underlying hardware. All of Apple’s products come with SSD and RAM upgrades that are above market rates and above the competition.
I don’t think consumers are stupid either, I think they know the storage upgrades are marked up, and still buy Apple products, for other reasons. I bought Apple laptops and was happy about them despite their cost - they were truly great machines and outshined the cheaper non-Apple laptops I’ve had.
Anyway, Mac sales have been down for a while because what would have been laptop and desktop sales are being now replaced with tablets and phones. Apple’s strategy hasn’t changed yet, and their overall sales and revenue on premium priced products haven’t show any sign of downturn yet.
> And I do believe it is because consumers aren't stupid and recognize that the new Macs have planned obsolescence built-in with their soldered RAM and SSDs
I guess this is a factor, but the main reason I haven't bought a new Mac is that they quit making the 27" iMac. Turning that beautiful screen into a paperweight or strictly-retro computer, only to turn around and buy a Mini and Studio Display, seems silly. OpenCore Legacy Patcher has kept me up-to-date so far, but there's an end on it. It doesn't help that my office is part of the "fancy" part of the house and so having exactly one cable (power) running into the computer is a nontrivial aesthetic benefit. It really does look sleeker, because it is.
I guess this is a factor, but the main reason I haven't bought a new Mac is that they quit making the 27" iMac. Turning that beautiful screen into a paperweight or strictly-retro computer, only to turn around and buy a Mini and Studio Display, seems silly. OpenCore Legacy Patcher has kept me up-to-date so far, but there's an end on it. It doesn't help that my office is part of the "fancy" part of the house and so having exactly one cable (power) running into the computer is a nontrivial aesthetic benefit. It really does look sleeker, because it is.
Hopefully they'll come out with a 32" 6K iMac with Target Display Mode. ;-)
> (...) for their premium pricing (...)
That's a creative euphemism for price gouging.
That's a creative euphemism for price gouging.
Your framing is not accurate. Apple is capitalist, using the free market, and profiteering, sure, but price gouging is “distinguished by being short-term and localized and by being restricted to essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and equipment needed to preserve life and property.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
I think you tried rather desperate to handwave over the fact that Apple price-gouges their laptops. Their entry-level prices for anaemic 8GB laptops to the small fortunes they charge to update (doesn't even count as an upgrade) their RAM beyond 8GB is nothing but price gouging. You can't hide the fact that Apple charges more for 16GB of RAM than what it costs to buy a full blown PC with 16GB of RAM.
It seems like you must have misread or misunderstood what I said. I explicitly acknowledged multiple times that their RAM & storage prices are higher than market rates. You are still misusing the phrase ‘price gouging’ according to Wikipedia’s definition. There are other common phrases for charging higher than market rates, such as profiteering. That’s fine, you call it what you want, but FWIW the result is you are adding negative spin while accusing me of positive spin.
> Tech’s stagnated for over a decade
I don’t know where to begin with this, but on topic, the M1 came out in 2020 and was a big tech leap in how PCs are done.
Sure, all the individual technologies within existed elsewhere first. But Apple executed and delivered great products.
I don’t know where to begin with this, but on topic, the M1 came out in 2020 and was a big tech leap in how PCs are done.
Sure, all the individual technologies within existed elsewhere first. But Apple executed and delivered great products.
Sure. Running an OS that is carrying a lot of legacy OS X with introduced bugs and cruft. I love *nix and hope to keep using it for a long time more. But if you plunked 2002 me into modern day, apple’s offerings would be pretty cool but not what I’d expect after 2 decades.
You could buy a desktop with 4 gigs of ram in 2010.
You could buy a desktop with 4 gigs of ram in 2010.
Most of your comments in this thread read like you are completely unaware of the tech and manufacturing leaps we've already passed and are currently trying to pass. You are allowed to complain if you want to, but your complaints are unsubstantiated. Signalling we haven't made significant and or substantial advances since 2002 is a joke - especially if your barometer is buying RAM.
There's always research ongoing to improve tech and a lot of it is on the market already, but just because researchers figured something out doesn't mean it's feasible on a large manufacturing scale or that thermodynamics will even allow it to work well. Comparing devices in 2002 to 2023 and not noticing the drastic improvements just shows a lack of understanding and or signs of living in complete denial to just complain.
There's always research ongoing to improve tech and a lot of it is on the market already, but just because researchers figured something out doesn't mean it's feasible on a large manufacturing scale or that thermodynamics will even allow it to work well. Comparing devices in 2002 to 2023 and not noticing the drastic improvements just shows a lack of understanding and or signs of living in complete denial to just complain.
They could get me to shut up for probably 4 years if they cemented a deal to produce the next Nintendo console with Nintendo in a way Nintendo would be fully onboard with delivering. Think steam deck or mac mini level of hardware/cost.
I bought my windows laptop with 8g of ram in 2009. It was nicer but certainly not top of the line. If I recall, I think the minimum you’d find at that time would be 4g, and some configurations offered 16g.
What was the leap though? Pay huge sums for the best TSMC node and put as much as possible on package? Own the whole stack?
Marketing. It was a huge marketing leap for Apple to take credit for TSMC's node upgrades and claim it as some sort of great technological leap.
Given that the next generation Snapdragon offers comparable performance to Apple's M line, it appears that node advances were responsible for a very large percentage of any performance gains.
Given that the next generation Snapdragon offers comparable performance to Apple's M line, it appears that node advances were responsible for a very large percentage of any performance gains.
Yeah, probably had nothing to do with Qualcomm acquiring Nuvia, etc.
I don't know what the leap was, just the effect: a combination of perf and battery life that puts everything else to shame.
There was a time in the late 90s and early aughts when by the time you've unboxed your new computer it's already out of date.
I'm sure it was even more so in the 80's into the 90's, but that's a little before my time.
We have not really had a quantum leap in the last 20 years. Even longer. Apple's M-series chips are the closest we've gotten in recent times I think.
I'm sure it was even more so in the 80's into the 90's, but that's a little before my time.
We have not really had a quantum leap in the last 20 years. Even longer. Apple's M-series chips are the closest we've gotten in recent times I think.
My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box
You say you've had your desktop for over a week?
Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique
Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great
If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight
https://youtu.be/qpMvS1Q1sos?si=kbkY4H6nepvB7I0o
But it was obsolete before I opened the box
You say you've had your desktop for over a week?
Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique
Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great
If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight
https://youtu.be/qpMvS1Q1sos?si=kbkY4H6nepvB7I0o
I don't even need to click the link. Weird Al' is speaking the truth here!
M1 was not that big of a leap for trillion dollar company. If you looked in A12 bionic or other processor from Apple before M1, M1 wasn't that different in IPC/core or any metric. Also Apple was 2 generation in semiconductor process ahead due to TSMC contracts.
If you look closely, yes apple is bit better in manufacturing, bit better in materials etc. and I have many apple products, but its products isn't that different from many small companies. Unlike say Google, whose software engineering and scale they can handle for complex services is almost impossible to match for small companies.
If you look closely, yes apple is bit better in manufacturing, bit better in materials etc. and I have many apple products, but its products isn't that different from many small companies. Unlike say Google, whose software engineering and scale they can handle for complex services is almost impossible to match for small companies.
This discussion is a bit like the dropbox/rsync comment, M1 was a huge leap for the users, I am yet to see anyone upgrading to M1 and not amazed around me. It was a technological huge leap or not is not the important part here in my opinion.
Dropbox/rsync thread is so hyped here and most people haven't read it[1]. Firstly most comments were positive. Also the top comment poster who was negative first became positive later after explaination. Top commenter said "You are correct that this presents a very good, easy-to-install piece of functionality for Windows users". Second commenter said "This is genius. It's is problem everyone is having, and everyone knew it".
Also you missed the point of thread. I said I like Apple products. It's just that the stage they are in, they aren't trying to solve really tough problems which very likely will just loose money like say google does with quantum computing or AI.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
Also you missed the point of thread. I said I like Apple products. It's just that the stage they are in, they aren't trying to solve really tough problems which very likely will just loose money like say google does with quantum computing or AI.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
It's entirely subjective and I'm going to disagree. I ran an A12Z Developer Transition Kit and then immediately upgraded to an M1 Mini and the raw performance was staggeringly faster.
My followup question: if it's so easy and unimpressive, why aren't other companies doing it -- especially at similar performance-per-watt? The market is obviously there and they release "answers" to Apple Silicon that aren't really answers (again, perf-per-watt isn't there).
My followup question: if it's so easy and unimpressive, why aren't other companies doing it -- especially at similar performance-per-watt? The market is obviously there and they release "answers" to Apple Silicon that aren't really answers (again, perf-per-watt isn't there).
> The company is the problem here
The author feigns indignance at Apple's margins, as if the only possible purpose for that markup is to line the pockets of Apple execs. But this isn't pure profit for Apple. Apple develops feature and security updates which they make available for free (at the point of use) for years to their hardware customers. The significant hardware markup is what enables this!
Contrast this to companies that sell hardware at cost. You find phones and laptops crammed with programs to collect and monetize your data, and zero security or driver updates.
A company that charges full price up front is at least in a position to afford to be able to do the right thing by users.
The author feigns indignance at Apple's margins, as if the only possible purpose for that markup is to line the pockets of Apple execs. But this isn't pure profit for Apple. Apple develops feature and security updates which they make available for free (at the point of use) for years to their hardware customers. The significant hardware markup is what enables this!
Contrast this to companies that sell hardware at cost. You find phones and laptops crammed with programs to collect and monetize your data, and zero security or driver updates.
A company that charges full price up front is at least in a position to afford to be able to do the right thing by users.
Yeah, everyone points out that "if its free, you are the product" then Google and Microsoft do all kinds of shitty stuff due to their products being cheap/free, then people scream about Apple's hardware markups.
Apple does plenty of data collection too though I believe they keep most the data internal. "If it's free, you are the product" sure, but that doesn't imply that if it's not free, you are not the product.
And yet they become obsolete in a couple of years of time unlike the likes of other products like say for example, ThinkPads.
It's a forced and planned obsolescence and nothing else.
All the required cost for the product and support is already included in the product cost as it being costly compared to its competitors. All other stuff that they do around it is pure marketing and projection to make people believe and have that sense of something super duper is being offered to them which doesn't exist and is unique.
While some of is acceptable, but majority of it is useless or not used or used once or twice in it's lifetime. Except for some professionals.
Just swindling people of their hard earned monies...
It's a forced and planned obsolescence and nothing else.
All the required cost for the product and support is already included in the product cost as it being costly compared to its competitors. All other stuff that they do around it is pure marketing and projection to make people believe and have that sense of something super duper is being offered to them which doesn't exist and is unique.
While some of is acceptable, but majority of it is useless or not used or used once or twice in it's lifetime. Except for some professionals.
Just swindling people of their hard earned monies...
> And yet they become obsolete in a couple of years of time unlike the likes of other products like say for example, ThinkPads.
Last I checked Apple products get about 7 years of updates. My 2016 MacBook Pro is falling off the edge of security updates about now.
I'd prefer 10 years, but it's more than two.
The exception may be more recent intel Macs which are likely to be obsoleted at a faster rate due to the ARM/Apple Silicon transition. Though I guess you can still run Windows. ;-p
Last I checked Apple products get about 7 years of updates. My 2016 MacBook Pro is falling off the edge of security updates about now.
I'd prefer 10 years, but it's more than two.
The exception may be more recent intel Macs which are likely to be obsoleted at a faster rate due to the ARM/Apple Silicon transition. Though I guess you can still run Windows. ;-p
You mean do the right thing by shareholders. Apple spends on the order of a 100 billion a year lining shareholder pockets through buybacks and dividends. That is three times what they spend on r&d.
This company is making obscene amounts of profit only to hand most of it over to people whose contribution to apple’s success is zero, instead of spending it on improving the products or customers actually responsible for that success. If this isn’t a condemnation of what’s wrong with capitalism, I don’t know what is. Tim Cook may have no other choice, but it is despicable that he doesn’t.
This company is making obscene amounts of profit only to hand most of it over to people whose contribution to apple’s success is zero, instead of spending it on improving the products or customers actually responsible for that success. If this isn’t a condemnation of what’s wrong with capitalism, I don’t know what is. Tim Cook may have no other choice, but it is despicable that he doesn’t.
Tim Cook has a choice, Apple actually started doing that right after Steve Jobs passed away. Steve categorically refused to do that kind of stuff precisely because of those problems.
Tim Cook also has a vested interest in lining his own pockets, he has targets that are about revenue and profits, not user experience and customer satisfaction. So, he maximise his own benefit and this is what we get.
People who pretend Apple wasn't different under Job are magnificent gaslighters and should not be taken seriously about anything really...
People who pretend Apple wasn't different under Job are magnificent gaslighters and should not be taken seriously about anything really...
if the market (competition) is not forcing them, why would they spend all that on R&D?
the lack of (competent) competition is what's the problem, not that that there's return on capital. I don't like Apple, but I hardly can blame them, when they can make all this money by simply being the least shit generally okay-ish option.
the lack of (competent) competition is what's the problem, not that that there's return on capital. I don't like Apple, but I hardly can blame them, when they can make all this money by simply being the least shit generally okay-ish option.
> I think the best reaction would be shame. Just a big round of shame for a trillion dollar company being so greedy to cripple their top equipment.
You're not going to shame a company into changing how it does market segmentation.
They do this because it makes them more money, and if you don't like padding their profit margins your best reaction would be to simply not buy their products. There are plenty of other PC vendors out there.
You're not going to shame a company into changing how it does market segmentation.
They do this because it makes them more money, and if you don't like padding their profit margins your best reaction would be to simply not buy their products. There are plenty of other PC vendors out there.
It seems in 2004 the web was much more indignant on Apple memory prices. Let's pick up the pace people!
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=a...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=a...
Innovation for the sake of innovation doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A CPU on germanium? Why? The semiconductor industry thought about it decided silicon was a better material platform 50 years ago.
The decision was kind of arbitrary though, and now economy of scale makes it very hard to switch. For instance, GaAs is better semiconductor than silicone in many aspects, and probably somewhat better overall for chips, but switching to it would cost billions
“The semiconductor industry thought about it decided silicon was a better material platform 50 years ago.” Because we’re stuck at a handful of cores and around 3ghz clock on silicon.
We are? I must not know how to count because those are not the numbers I have. What year is it where you are?
I’m in the market for a new Macbook. Should I get the M2 instead of the M3? The base M2 had 16GB RAM
I replaced an M1 Pro with an M2 Air and have had nothing but improvements in my daily computing. Juggling Xcode, terminal tools, web browsers, Slack, Discord, music/podcasts, video streaming, video CALLS, all the background sync, email, VS Code, occasionally photoshop for flavor. It just doesn't slow down, at all, at any point.
The M series SOCs are just fucking absurd. In every space besides gaming and graphics, they utterly lap PC's. I don't even remember the last time my Macbook wasn't charged enough to use, and I use it away from my desk quite a lot. Moving from my office PC to a Macbook has felt like being flung 6 years into the future.
The M series SOCs are just fucking absurd. In every space besides gaming and graphics, they utterly lap PC's. I don't even remember the last time my Macbook wasn't charged enough to use, and I use it away from my desk quite a lot. Moving from my office PC to a Macbook has felt like being flung 6 years into the future.
Same here. Turned in my 14" MBP M1 for a M2 15" MB-Air (1TB NVMe, 24G RAM). Lightweight, fast, excellent 15" screen. Hands down the best laptop I have ever had (and I have a stack of MBP boxes in my closet from the past 10yrs).
The base M3 MBP isn't a true MBP. It's to replace the 13" MBP w/ touchbar, which was always a lower-end black sheep of the MBP family. Now that they've removed the touchbar, they've consolidated it into the regular MBP lineup, but it remains crippled.
If you were considering a 14" or 16" M2 Pro MBP, the equivalent M3 Pro MBP would not be the base model, and WOULD be an upgrade... just avoid the base M3 (non-Pro) config.
If you were considering the M2 MBP w/ touch bar, then the base M3 MBP is the equivalent chip.
On the other hand, if you don't need the GPU improvements, or the mild CPU speed bump, that M3 gives and you can find an M2 Pro cheaper because they're "old", go for that.
edit: Adding "Pro" to M2 and M3 to indicate which were the proper MBPs.
If you were considering a 14" or 16" M2 Pro MBP, the equivalent M3 Pro MBP would not be the base model, and WOULD be an upgrade... just avoid the base M3 (non-Pro) config.
If you were considering the M2 MBP w/ touch bar, then the base M3 MBP is the equivalent chip.
On the other hand, if you don't need the GPU improvements, or the mild CPU speed bump, that M3 gives and you can find an M2 Pro cheaper because they're "old", go for that.
edit: Adding "Pro" to M2 and M3 to indicate which were the proper MBPs.
Yeah the base model MacBook Pro being gimped goes back even further than the recently discontinued Touch Bar pro.
When said Touch Bar pro was the top of the line, the cheapest pro was the one without a Touch Bar, missing half of the USB C ports, basically a MacBook Air in a pro shell.
I’ve never understood why they do this but it must sell well in some markets or something.
When said Touch Bar pro was the top of the line, the cheapest pro was the one without a Touch Bar, missing half of the USB C ports, basically a MacBook Air in a pro shell.
I’ve never understood why they do this but it must sell well in some markets or something.
What is your current computer? I still have my M1 Pro and it does everything I need it to right now.
Currently have a desktop as my primary device with an AMD Ryzen 5600x. Never felt that I was pushing that system. Had a Macbook Air 2019 that was starting to feel sluggish.
Desktop was fine since I was working from home the last 2 years. But I’ve finally got an office and also need to travel so need something more portable
Will be switching over from Ubuntu to Mac as well
Desktop was fine since I was working from home the last 2 years. But I’ve finally got an office and also need to travel so need something more portable
Will be switching over from Ubuntu to Mac as well
Just one more subjective datapoint from someone who previously upgraded every 1-2 generations on Intel or AMD mobile platforms and really likes to have the shiny new stuff ("It's TWENTY % faster!"): I have absolutely no need nor desire to upgrade my M1 Pro (using it for web development). If the difference in performance could be felt at all, it definitely wouldn't be worth the price, and other upgrades are basically non-existent. I wholeheartedly recommend finding a well-kept M1 Pro or at least a discounted M2 Pro.
I've seen reviews of the M2 and M3 chips, they're not too much better than the M1 it seems, even MKBHD on YouTube concluded the same and stuck with his M1, so that's what I'd recommend as well. If you're looking for deals, /r/appleswap has some good ones.
> I’m in the market for a new Macbook. Should I get the M2 instead of the M3?
Yes, especially if you were considering a low-end M3 model. Also consider a MacBook Air, which are great.
Yes, especially if you were considering a low-end M3 model. Also consider a MacBook Air, which are great.
The MBP has a very nice screen including HDR, if you care about that. M2 vs M3 - no idea. I have a M1 and it's great.
Yes. A discounted M2 with 16 (or 32) GB is a much better value than a new M3.
Honestly hold off until next year if you can or when they announce the M4. Otherwise probably get whatever you can afford to upgrade the RAM.
Or just wait until the year after for the M5.
Point being the jump from intel to M1 was much bigger than the jump from M1 to M3.
We don't know what they're upgrading from, they could have an M1 already. If they do have an Intel machine, then yes, they should ideally buy an M1 rather than spending more for M2 or M3 which don't really seem to be that large of a jump but for a proportionally higher cost.
I hear that the M6 is likely to be the most powerful chip they’ve ever produced.
When I started my current job they gave me an M1 Mac with 8GB because it’s what they had on hand.
I could barely run my IDE and a web browser. At least 1GB was for video memory, and it was swapping constantly.
I couldn’t run docker containers because of how much input lag I would get.
8GB is barely usable and shouldn’t even be an option for a Pro machine.
I used it for a week before switching to a personal desktop with 64GB.
I used it for a week before switching to a personal desktop with 64GB.
Did the company have various agents and other things installed? My company installs so much garbage on systems that they can make anything suck. Any time I have issues, it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to do, and has everything to do with the monitoring/management software. Windows, MacOS, more ram, less ram, doesn't really matter. They've found ways to destroy every system ever deployed.
My M1 MacBook Pro has actually handled it the best. My old Intel MacBook Pro would constantly be ramping up the fans, at one point burning through the whole battery in less than an hour if I unplugged it. No such issues with the M1 so far. There are still issues, but mostly crashes, not performance issues, which is a first in nearly 18 years of various desktops and laptops at the company.
My M1 MacBook Pro has actually handled it the best. My old Intel MacBook Pro would constantly be ramping up the fans, at one point burning through the whole battery in less than an hour if I unplugged it. No such issues with the M1 so far. There are still issues, but mostly crashes, not performance issues, which is a first in nearly 18 years of various desktops and laptops at the company.
I prefer my 8GB M1 Air to my 64GB Intel iMac for basically all of my Node/Rails/Swift development, with Docker running almost 100% of the time.
The only time I’ve seen the iMac be “better”, was when I had a Java project that had around 20 different packages that you needed to have open IDEs for.
The only time I’ve seen the iMac be “better”, was when I had a Java project that had around 20 different packages that you needed to have open IDEs for.
There is no reality where that 8gig heap machine will outperform a 64gig heap machine in any objective measure. I'm sure you will hedge with your statement with something like "well it feeels faster" or some such nonsense.
Not only does it feel faster, but it also beats the iMac at single-core performance, looking at bundle build times. If I could fully utilize all the RAM + cores of the iMac, it would obviously come out ahead, but that's not the case for most frontend dev work. Not to mention it cost about 1/3 of the iMac and the battery lasts forever.
What kind of comparison is that 8 to 64. 8 GB for windows also sucks as well or Linux (save with tiling manager), software just bloats over time.
Imo 8gb is not enough as baseline, today's 8gb is 16.
I remember 4GB being good in 2015.
Imo 8gb is not enough as baseline, today's 8gb is 16.
I remember 4GB being good in 2015.
4gb was good in 2005. 16gb was good in 2015.
Personally I won't use a computer (as a daily driver) without 64gb of RAM today. Everything eats memory like it's going out of style.
Personally I won't use a computer (as a daily driver) without 64gb of RAM today. Everything eats memory like it's going out of style.
Yeah it depends what you use it for ofc. At that time I was just working on LAMP stuff with Kate or Bluefish as my editor on Linux Mint ha.
I like leaving computers running for months (sleep at night) with a bunch of (context grouped) virtual windows the issue is when the OS resumes (windows or Mac) the stuff shifts around it's annoying (multi monitor).
I like leaving computers running for months (sleep at night) with a bunch of (context grouped) virtual windows the issue is when the OS resumes (windows or Mac) the stuff shifts around it's annoying (multi monitor).
I use Office/Safari/Photos/Whatsapp/VLC and sometimes Chrome on my 2015 MacBook Air with 8GB, and it seems to work OK.
> What kind of comparison is that 8 to 64.
Apple charges $200 to add 8GB, but you can get 64GB for less than $200.
Apple charges $200 to add 8GB, but you can get 64GB for less than $200.
mehhhhh you don't need a tiling window manager; lxde, lxqt, xfce are all fine "regular" window managers for low memory machines as long as you don't load a bunch of garbage that you don't have to have.
I work at apple and i use a m1 mac with 8gb for all my work
How? What apps are you using?
As soon as I plug in an external monitor it turns into molasses. If I try to do a screen share for a video call, it lags. My memory pressure graph was always maxed out.
If I ran the test suite for one repo the system became unresponsive. Docker would eat 4GB with only two containers (just redis and postgresql for local dev) I had to manually tune docker to use a little as possible.
It was a nightmare.
You're clearly a dev who requires at least 16GB. For many office workers, 8GB is fine.
I supposed if you only used your $1800 MacBook Pro to use the web browser, then yeah, 8GB would be fine.
Docker on Mac runs a VM, which can't ballon (inflate/deflate memory usage), so it's no wonder 8 GiB isn't enough for you. For those who don't need to use docker and don't that fixed overhead, they're not going to have the same problems. Chrome, Slack, and iTerm can still fill 8 GiB, but you need many more tabs to get there than if you had to run docker.
I wouldn't buy the $1600 M3 14" MBP if that's what you're referring to.
I can get an M2 Pro with 32GB for $1800 used easily. That's what I'd spend my money on if I had to get a laptop with $1800.
I can get an M2 Pro with 32GB for $1800 used easily. That's what I'd spend my money on if I had to get a laptop with $1800.
I am now certain you've never used office 365.
The market for people who bought 13" MBP was college kids or adults, "pro-sumers" who didn't want an air. Few of them need more than 8GB of memory, but the additional battery life, storage, HDMI, SD, display support, speakers and XDR display make the base 14" M3 worth the extra few hundred to them over the air.
The M3 Pro is the base for actual "professional" users.
The M3 Pro is the base for actual "professional" users.
I had an old job give me a bottom of the barrel, refurbished HP Desktop. I popped in some RAM I had laying around and bought a $75 SSD, my machine was then the envy of the office.
haha, I remember doing the same thing with various garbage laptops I got years ago at work, it was worth it to just spend like $50 of my own money to not have headaches and finish my work much faster...
I don't think memory was the main issue. It sounds like there was some software installed that was using up the CPU -- some background utility run amok.
I've got an 8 GB M1 MBA and run Chrome and an IDE effortlessly, even when connected to a 4K monitor, and with tons of tabs open.
I'm not saying 8 GB is enough for everybody, but it's perfectly fine for an IDE and web browser. I'm pretty sure your issue was something else.
I've got an 8 GB M1 MBA and run Chrome and an IDE effortlessly, even when connected to a 4K monitor, and with tons of tabs open.
I'm not saying 8 GB is enough for everybody, but it's perfectly fine for an IDE and web browser. I'm pretty sure your issue was something else.
Idk what you've done with that laptop but my m1 8gb is running fine with IDE, multiple chrome tabs and docker
8 Gb is fine, running docker on a dev instance is not
"You're holding it wrong"
> running docker on a dev instance is not
Why? This is what Docker is for.
Why? This is what Docker is for.
The point is, this is not what the lowest-end Mac laptop is for.
If you know you're going to be running Docker, and you buy a computer with 8GB of RAM, I'm afraid I have very little sympathy for you. You should know exactly what you're going to get.
If you know you're going to be running Docker, and you buy a computer with 8GB of RAM, I'm afraid I have very little sympathy for you. You should know exactly what you're going to get.
This thread was started with "When I started my current job they gave me an M1 Mac with 8GB...", which is the main point, in a professional environment the person responsible for purchasing new machines might not even know about these requirements, or will likely believe that the developer just wants a nicer machine for no reason, when others in the office use the base model without a problem.
Then I sympathize, but it's no more Apple's fault than it would be Google's if the people responsible for purchasing new machines had bought them a Chromebook.
The problem I have with 16GB as a upgrade is that the base model is widely available and often on sale. 16GB does exist as preconfigured option, but it is a lot harder to come by. It's mainly sold as BTO, which means you have to pay full price. That makes that extra 8GB of RAM ridiculously expensive. I mean it's already ridiculously expensive, but the fact that base models sell with huge discounts increases it even further. I will NEVER EVER pay for this upgrade out of sheer principle. I'd rather switch to another system.
Yep, I faced this same issue when I bought an M2 Air early March. The 16GB BTO upgrade was roughly 40% more expensive compared to the discounted base 8GB model.
Why does APPLE RAM cost so much?? (Apr 19, 2005)
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/why-does-apple-ram-cost...
Maybe one day Apple will lower memory prices. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it...
Maybe one day Apple will lower memory prices. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it...
Because they put themselves in that position by soldering the ram to the board. This way, people can't buy off the shelf RAM, the only way to upgrade is buying a more expensive mac.
They did the same with the storage. Even on expensive Mac Studios, even though the SSD can be taken out, it's incompatible with off the shelf SSDs. You can't even buy used, you have to go to the Apple store and pay the Apple premium for an SSD, and they reprogram your soldered SSD controller to work with the new drive.
They did the same with the storage. Even on expensive Mac Studios, even though the SSD can be taken out, it's incompatible with off the shelf SSDs. You can't even buy used, you have to go to the Apple store and pay the Apple premium for an SSD, and they reprogram your soldered SSD controller to work with the new drive.
Macs are luxury goods, price is the price. If you have an issue with it then you are not the market.
No one goes to a Lambo dealer and complains about the cost of an oil change. Price is the price for luxury goods.
No one goes to a Lambo dealer and complains about the cost of an oil change. Price is the price for luxury goods.
Apple has an 8% global market share for PCs. In Q42022, they shipped 7 million units.
Lamborghini shipped less than 10k units in 2022, total.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/apples-mac-market-share-jump...
https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en/news/lamborghinis-record-b...
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/01/19/apple-shipped-sev...
Lamborghini shipped less than 10k units in 2022, total.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/apples-mac-market-share-jump...
https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en/news/lamborghinis-record-b...
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/01/19/apple-shipped-sev...
While I agree with the general feeling of the article, I would like to bring some attention to the fact that Apple’s competition is on the business of monetizing their user base in a worse manner.
Windows is so shock-full of dark patterns these days (I’m speaking of the start menu, the upgrade wheel, the survtech in the browser and the OS), that I will be between the sword and a dark place when I need to upgrade my hardware next time. The Windows 11 upgrade is free, which speaks to Microsoft’s commitment to make me their product.
Who knows, maybe I will end up paying five grands for a Mac Studio. In terms of hardware, that same amount of money would buy me a beefy workstation that I could arm myself, but Linux won’t run more than half of the software I use these days.
Windows is so shock-full of dark patterns these days (I’m speaking of the start menu, the upgrade wheel, the survtech in the browser and the OS), that I will be between the sword and a dark place when I need to upgrade my hardware next time. The Windows 11 upgrade is free, which speaks to Microsoft’s commitment to make me their product.
Who knows, maybe I will end up paying five grands for a Mac Studio. In terms of hardware, that same amount of money would buy me a beefy workstation that I could arm myself, but Linux won’t run more than half of the software I use these days.
If 8GB will be a bottleneck for many today, imagine the performance of that non-upgradeable laptop in a few years’ time.
Apple used to sell an iMac with non-upgradable RAM:
we found this iMac has the memory soldered to the motherboard removing any possibility of adding additional memory. Users will be permanently locked in to the 8GB of memory, as there is no Apple factory upgrade option.
https://eshop.macsales.com/blog/25084-teardown-of-lower-cost...
Lots of returns and refurbs on that model.
Apple used to sell an iMac with non-upgradable RAM:
we found this iMac has the memory soldered to the motherboard removing any possibility of adding additional memory. Users will be permanently locked in to the 8GB of memory, as there is no Apple factory upgrade option.
https://eshop.macsales.com/blog/25084-teardown-of-lower-cost...
Lots of returns and refurbs on that model.
> Lots of returns and refurbs on that model.
You imagine, or you have data?
You imagine, or you have data?
[deleted]
I have two M1 Airs with 8gb apiece, run standard webdev loads with docker and over 100 tabs on each, and have zero issues ever. The memory management is absurd, and since I'm not working with large datasets, I'm happy. 32gb is my minimum on any other machine.
same here: both firefox and chrome open, VScode, terminal, multiple dev apps, node processes, PDF reader, Bunch of terminal processes, etc. Memory pressure is green. Its almost like they dont believe us. Sure 8GB sounds stingy, but I'd only need to upgrade if I started using VMs that gobbled up memory for themselves.
I wouldn't even buy a phone with just 8 GB of ram, atleast for an android
This will excerbate the problem with electronic waste by shortening the useful life
Apple should be more serious about their environmental commitments
Apple should be more serious about their environmental commitments
The average Mac is in use for far longer than your average upgradeable windows laptop from Walmart/Costco. One strong evidence for this is that macOS market share is actually 20% on desktop/laptops despite Macs selling only about ~8-10% of total PCs worldwide. [0]
So yes, on average, Macs are significantly better for the environment. Having less RAM does not mean people replace their Macs more often than Windows computers.
If people truly cared about the environment, they'd buy Macs over Windows computers.
With that said, could Apple extend the lifespan of Macs even more by making the base RAM higher? Yes. Not going to argue against that. But Macs are already much better than Windows computers in this regard.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
[0] https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51020623
So yes, on average, Macs are significantly better for the environment. Having less RAM does not mean people replace their Macs more often than Windows computers.
If people truly cared about the environment, they'd buy Macs over Windows computers.
With that said, could Apple extend the lifespan of Macs even more by making the base RAM higher? Yes. Not going to argue against that. But Macs are already much better than Windows computers in this regard.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
[0] https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51020623
Given that this comparison is with quite expensive Macs vs lots of cheap Windows laptops I'm not sure your conclusion makes sense.
For the "if people truly cared about the environment" they would probably get the same use out of a similar expensive PC.
It's also a bit tone deaf to gatekeep environmentalism behind a $1000++ purchase, especially one that many can't afford.
For the "if people truly cared about the environment" they would probably get the same use out of a similar expensive PC.
It's also a bit tone deaf to gatekeep environmentalism behind a $1000++ purchase, especially one that many can't afford.
>For the "if people truly cared about the environment" they would probably get the same use out of a similar expensive PC.
I really don't think so. I used to buy $800 - $900 Windows laptops. They often lasted 2 years before some hinge is broken or the display suddenly gets corrupted or it comes unbearably slow.
I had a 2013 base Macbook Air that lasted until 2019. None of my Windows laptops ever lasted that long. The data seems to back up my anecdote experience.
Do you get more RAM on a Windows laptop for the same price as a Mac? Yes, usually. But everything else around the Windows laptop is poor.
I really don't think so. I used to buy $800 - $900 Windows laptops. They often lasted 2 years before some hinge is broken or the display suddenly gets corrupted or it comes unbearably slow.
I had a 2013 base Macbook Air that lasted until 2019. None of my Windows laptops ever lasted that long. The data seems to back up my anecdote experience.
Do you get more RAM on a Windows laptop for the same price as a Mac? Yes, usually. But everything else around the Windows laptop is poor.
What on earth are you doing to your laptops that has you convinced that six years is an exceptionally long lifespan!?!?
Anyways even though it's literally not a Windows laptop my system 76 lemur ultra i bought in May 2013 works fine after a decade of regular use with no hinge or screen problems. I came close to replacing it recently because i need a laptop with vulkan support but then it turned out that mesa actually has a vulkan implementation on ivy bridge (albeit with a warning that it's not entirely functional) so ill be holding onto it for at least a few more months, maybe longer.
Anyways even though it's literally not a Windows laptop my system 76 lemur ultra i bought in May 2013 works fine after a decade of regular use with no hinge or screen problems. I came close to replacing it recently because i need a laptop with vulkan support but then it turned out that mesa actually has a vulkan implementation on ivy bridge (albeit with a warning that it's not entirely functional) so ill be holding onto it for at least a few more months, maybe longer.
>What on earth are you doing to your laptops that has you convinced that six years is an exceptionally long lifespan!?!?
When I was a poor college student, I kept buying $500 Windows laptops and they kept breaking after 1-2 years.
When I was a poor college student, I kept buying $500 Windows laptops and they kept breaking after 1-2 years.
Weren't they $800-900 a second ago?
>Weren't they $800-900 a second ago?
These also break much faster than Macs in my experience.
These also break much faster than Macs in my experience.
Perhaps it was $900 new, then a $400 discount would explain the mysterious hinge damage. ;-)
Next we'll find out that the system didn't have an SSD, had all manner of crapware installed and had its intake ducts filled with dust. Typical fanboy comparisons.
Next we'll find out that the system didn't have an SSD, had all manner of crapware installed and had its intake ducts filled with dust. Typical fanboy comparisons.
Yeah my opinion and experience as well. I also use Apple stuff but the level of dishonesty and lying coming out of typical Apple fans is absolutely unreal.
One hilarious thing I have noticed about those type of peoples, is that they will defend their overpriced MacBook to the teeth but also go for the cheapest nastiest food possible and defend their stingy choices with a "it's the same thing" type of argument even though you can clearly taste a difference and it is clearly nutritionally worse.
It makes you wonder... I try to avoid those peoples nowadays, always more trouble than they are worth...
One hilarious thing I have noticed about those type of peoples, is that they will defend their overpriced MacBook to the teeth but also go for the cheapest nastiest food possible and defend their stingy choices with a "it's the same thing" type of argument even though you can clearly taste a difference and it is clearly nutritionally worse.
It makes you wonder... I try to avoid those peoples nowadays, always more trouble than they are worth...
My wife’s computer was getting slow so I stuck another 16GB of RAM in it for like $30. that upgraded added years to its life.
I have a stack of old MacBooks I can’t use because they only have 256GB SSDs that can’t be upgraded and I was constantly running out of space on them.
There is something to be said for being able to upgrade a machine to lengthen its usable life.
I have a stack of old MacBooks I can’t use because they only have 256GB SSDs that can’t be upgraded and I was constantly running out of space on them.
There is something to be said for being able to upgrade a machine to lengthen its usable life.
>My wife’s computer was getting slow so I stuck another 16GB of RAM in it for like $30. that upgraded added years to its life.
Not disputing this. But the vast majority people don't upgrade their laptops. They just buy a new one when it's slow.
I can't find it right now but there's been studies done showing that most people never upgrade their RAM/storage even though they could. They just buy a new computer.
Not disputing this. But the vast majority people don't upgrade their laptops. They just buy a new one when it's slow.
I can't find it right now but there's been studies done showing that most people never upgrade their RAM/storage even though they could. They just buy a new computer.
And then I buy their used laptop on ebay for dirt cheap, buy a cheap stick of RAM, and have a really useful server.
[deleted]
> I have a stack of old MacBooks I can’t use
For real? With prevalent cloud storage and cheap tiny external devices it's hard to believe they're totally useless.
For real? With prevalent cloud storage and cheap tiny external devices it's hard to believe they're totally useless.
I still use my Windows laptops and Linux netbook bought around 2009.
Why? Because they are upgradable in what matters, battery, memory and disk space.
Why? Because they are upgradable in what matters, battery, memory and disk space.
The display man, so good. Using a 2015 i7 mbp still.
Eh, if you give more Ram developers will just take advantage of it. Realistically perf headroom just gets eaten up on shitty code and abstraction layers. Ever notice how word is always the same slow-ish speeds. Never really faster.
You’re arguing that we should all be using 10-20 year old computers and that computers should never get faster because it makes us write less efficient code?
That’s an asinine argument.
That’s an asinine argument.
Not only that, it doesn't even work if only Apple does it. Developers will still write the bloated code because it runs on cheap PCs with 16+GB of RAM, and it runs on the pricier Macs that also have 16+GB of RAM, so the only thing it runs poorly on is the more affordable Macs which are a small enough market segment for developers to disregard.
>That’s an asinine argument.
Good that that isn't the actual argument made by GP, but just a pretty strawman you managed to think up.
Good that that isn't the actual argument made by GP, but just a pretty strawman you managed to think up.
I guess I misinterpreted his argument. How would you word the point he was making, so I can understand it better?
I'm also unable to read the argument in any other way. If you have a better explanation please provide it.
The jump from developers will use more RAM on abstraction layers to computers shouldnt get faster was never made by the original comment, and implying it was made is the worst possible reading of the argument made which is against HN guidelines.
That’s not how I read it “IF you give them more RAM… they’ll just use it”. Thus, more RAM is effectively the same as less RAM. Conclusion: no need for more RAM.
>That does not mean that 8GB is “enough,” though. Even relatively casual users who load up on browser tabs and inefficient Electron apps (household names like Slack, Teams, Discord, etc.) can find performance compromised by running out of RAM.
As much as i love to rip on Apple's overpriced garbage, i think this speaks more to what an embarrassing clusterfuck the web has become. I remember doing all the listed tasks on computers that didn't even have 8GB HDDs.
As much as i love to rip on Apple's overpriced garbage, i think this speaks more to what an embarrassing clusterfuck the web has become. I remember doing all the listed tasks on computers that didn't even have 8GB HDDs.
Don't buy it with 8 Gigs. Where's the Problem?
If it's to expensive, buy another one!
Is there a "humen right" or something that says: NO ONE SCHOUL HAVE LESS THAN 16 GIGS!
A Pro(!) Machine which costs 4.000 Bucks with M3 Max, 36 Gigs and 1TB of SSD and ist used for 3 years or so costs 112 Bucks a month. For an absolute powerhouse which is doing Desktop-class Worstation-Performance on the go! And for a machine i am working on 8 hours a day and earn my money!
And as a Pro who has to buy a 112$/month machine you should have paid this thing in one or two hours work per month.
As a hobyist - well, it's a hobby! Buy whatever you can afford.
If it's to expensive, buy another one!
Is there a "humen right" or something that says: NO ONE SCHOUL HAVE LESS THAN 16 GIGS!
A Pro(!) Machine which costs 4.000 Bucks with M3 Max, 36 Gigs and 1TB of SSD and ist used for 3 years or so costs 112 Bucks a month. For an absolute powerhouse which is doing Desktop-class Worstation-Performance on the go! And for a machine i am working on 8 hours a day and earn my money!
And as a Pro who has to buy a 112$/month machine you should have paid this thing in one or two hours work per month.
As a hobyist - well, it's a hobby! Buy whatever you can afford.
[deleted]
Whenever I pointed this out
"very wide memory bus very close to the M3 chip"
I got voted down here. But the Mx performace you get is partially because of the wide memory bus of the unified memory. The downside is the cost and the you-can't-upgrade-card you have been dealt. Please don't point out again it's "just" DDR5 and not in a system-in-a-package and just like any other laptop.
"We shouldn’t accept this"
Well you raved about the CPU performance and how Apple is genius, you can't eat the cake and have it (the cake is a lie!)
(LDDR5 8gb is ~$25)
"very wide memory bus very close to the M3 chip"
I got voted down here. But the Mx performace you get is partially because of the wide memory bus of the unified memory. The downside is the cost and the you-can't-upgrade-card you have been dealt. Please don't point out again it's "just" DDR5 and not in a system-in-a-package and just like any other laptop.
"We shouldn’t accept this"
Well you raved about the CPU performance and how Apple is genius, you can't eat the cake and have it (the cake is a lie!)
(LDDR5 8gb is ~$25)
If I may take a guess, maybe you get downvoted not because of the content of your arguments but because of their coherence.
For instance, who is this “you” you’re raving against? How is CPU performance related to the cost if 8gb RAM?
Consider re-reading your comment before you hit post and the downvotes might well disappear.
For instance, who is this “you” you’re raving against? How is CPU performance related to the cost if 8gb RAM?
Consider re-reading your comment before you hit post and the downvotes might well disappear.
I would disagree.
Usually my comments have some upvotes or none. But my Apple comments get consistent downvotes.
"How is CPU performance related to the cost if 8gb RAM?"
"But the Mx performace you get is partially because of the wide memory bus of the unified memory. The downside is the cost"
I did write this in the comment I think and the others - but I agree not as clearly in this one as in others.
(My Apple/M[x]/Memory comments often drop karma below zero and than get upvoted - as a reaction? I do think this is more of a community topic, I don't think my other comments are clear and my Apple/M[x]/Memory comments get downvotes because they are unclear/confusing. If I write "Steve Wozniak is just a human" it seems in the center of the distortion field)
Usually my comments have some upvotes or none. But my Apple comments get consistent downvotes.
"How is CPU performance related to the cost if 8gb RAM?"
"But the Mx performace you get is partially because of the wide memory bus of the unified memory. The downside is the cost"
I did write this in the comment I think and the others - but I agree not as clearly in this one as in others.
(My Apple/M[x]/Memory comments often drop karma below zero and than get upvoted - as a reaction? I do think this is more of a community topic, I don't think my other comments are clear and my Apple/M[x]/Memory comments get downvotes because they are unclear/confusing. If I write "Steve Wozniak is just a human" it seems in the center of the distortion field)
> "How is CPU performance related to the cost if 8gb RAM?"
> "But the Mx performace you get is partially because of the wide memory bus of the unified memory. The downside is the cost"
FWIW I still have no idea what you mean here.
> "But the Mx performace you get is partially because of the wide memory bus of the unified memory. The downside is the cost"
FWIW I still have no idea what you mean here.
FWIW I still don't understand what is not to understand here
Wider memory bus => Better CPU performance + higher cost
Higher cost b/c wider bus with system-in-a-package has higher cost than memory with smaller bus in standard DIMMs.
Better CPU performance b/c a wider bus gets data faster to the CPU.
Wider memory bus => Better CPU performance + higher cost
Higher cost b/c wider bus with system-in-a-package has higher cost than memory with smaller bus in standard DIMMs.
Better CPU performance b/c a wider bus gets data faster to the CPU.
[deleted]
You can justify this all you want, but the truth is, for the price point, Apple is failing its customers with its minimum memory offering.
It’s not about what works: it’s about the perception customers have of the company, and this looks cheap.
Apple is a premium offering and questions like these are a product management failure that can damage the brand.
If you find yourself defending your product for looking inferior as a premium positioned product you have already made terrible mistakes. Apple should raise ram minimums simply to eliminate the perception of value questions. God knows (as does every investor) that they have the margin to do it.
It’s not about what works: it’s about the perception customers have of the company, and this looks cheap.
Apple is a premium offering and questions like these are a product management failure that can damage the brand.
If you find yourself defending your product for looking inferior as a premium positioned product you have already made terrible mistakes. Apple should raise ram minimums simply to eliminate the perception of value questions. God knows (as does every investor) that they have the margin to do it.
I don't understand... I routinely run my M1 Air with 4 instances of jetbrains IDEs, have dual screen, Safari with tens of tabs, additional apps like Rocket chat and more... and the machine never go past 8gb ram. What's going on with others ?
I run my minimum spec m1 air with docker, vsc and all the same things I run on my work lenovo t14 or something with 32gb ram and my m1 runs better. So I'm not sure why 8gb wouldn't be enough for most things on a macbook, and I do wonder what the hell windows is doing.
That being said. I don't see why Apple wouldn't put 16gb in the M3 pros. I mean, I don't really get why you'd buy the smallest pro instead of just getting the air, but it does seem cheap of Apple to only put 8GB of ram into it.
That being said. I don't see why Apple wouldn't put 16gb in the M3 pros. I mean, I don't really get why you'd buy the smallest pro instead of just getting the air, but it does seem cheap of Apple to only put 8GB of ram into it.
> What's going on with others ?
What's going on is that almost none of the people posting here have used an Apple Silicon Mac with 8GB of RAM, and don't realize that it's a very different experience than trying to use a PC with 8GB of RAM.
What's going on is that almost none of the people posting here have used an Apple Silicon Mac with 8GB of RAM, and don't realize that it's a very different experience than trying to use a PC with 8GB of RAM.
Tens? try hundreds of tabs, across three browsers.
also Docker.
also Docker.
Why should I use hundreds of tabs ? I don't think I could even use this, I'd be lost. Also Why should I use Docker ?
From the article:
> Yes, you need more than 8GB
No, I don't.
From the article:
> Yes, you need more than 8GB
No, I don't.
The reason they do this is to have a low headline price, yet push you into upgrading more than just the RAM. Customers see the low 'starting from' price, but then get pushed into upgrading for more RAM. At which point they see that they can change for a more powerful machine with the same RAM for only a bit more. You come in for an M3, but walk out with the M3 Pro.
Boy, I wouldn't even consider buying a new computer with less than 32GB. This is basically a marketing trick to to make you think a MacBook Pro is cheaper than it is.
For the specs I would need it's now over $5k AUD. Sigh.
For the specs I would need it's now over $5k AUD. Sigh.
I think Apple should have more memory in their base pro models, but it can not be understated to those who have not used an 8GB Macbook Air how that does not impact day-to-day computer usage compared to a similar spec. Windows machine.
I had used an M1 Air with 16Gb for work in the past and was impressed by it but was skeptical of the 8 Gb version. That is until I bought one because it was on sale.
If you are doing video editing or using similarly memory intensive applications you will see issues, but you can in a sense say 8GB is ~equivalent to 16 GB on Windows for average use cases.
I had used an M1 Air with 16Gb for work in the past and was impressed by it but was skeptical of the 8 Gb version. That is until I bought one because it was on sale.
If you are doing video editing or using similarly memory intensive applications you will see issues, but you can in a sense say 8GB is ~equivalent to 16 GB on Windows for average use cases.
I agree that 8GB is too small. My theory is that the Apple M processor guys have entered a dark pact with the marketing guys that runs like this:
- we are going to need a speed bump after the initial switch to the M series to keep the momentum
- we can get 8GB on the same SOC as the CPU much cheaper than 16GB (this was different with the Intel non SOC multi package architecture)
And so RAM for a mac is now analogous to camera lenses on an iPhone … it going to be the main driver of upgrades when the step change to M / SOC saturates
It also explains why the late Intel modules were limited to 8GB
And so RAM for a mac is now analogous to camera lenses on an iPhone … it going to be the main driver of upgrades when the step change to M / SOC saturates
It also explains why the late Intel modules were limited to 8GB
Luxury status items are not priced on BOM. That's the whole point, showing that you don't care paying way beyond actual costs.
It would be a strategic signaling mistake for Apple to sell RAM upgrades at actual cost, it would decrease their luxury brand value.
If you don't mind signaling poor and want to pay just actual costs buy a PC.
It would be a strategic signaling mistake for Apple to sell RAM upgrades at actual cost, it would decrease their luxury brand value.
If you don't mind signaling poor and want to pay just actual costs buy a PC.
This would only make sense if there was some way for people to show off their extra RAM. A MacBook Pro with 8GB or RAM, or 24GB for $400 more, look exactly the same, and no one cares how much RAM someone else has. It's not a flex.
Whoa, I didn't know there was such a thing as a 15" MacBook Air with 24 GB.
That may very well be my next computer. My old MBP died, and the cost of a new MBP is extortionate.
Thank you!
That may very well be my next computer. My old MBP died, and the cost of a new MBP is extortionate.
Thank you!
Premium pricing absolutely factors in. They charge $200 instead of say $199.99 because it’s meant to feel expensive, not like a good deal.
Making money by selling RAM is baked in to Apple's DNA. Apple charged a premium for the original Mac to go from the entry level 128 Kbytes to 512 Kbytes of RAM. Here we are almost 40 years later and that business model is still in place.
I'll add to the chorus of folks that is somewhat baffled that 8GB is not enough. That is a ton of memory.
I do heavy dev work on my M1 Air with 8GB, meaning multiple IDEs, dozens of Chrome tabs, iPhone simulators, and plenty of electron apps all open at once. Never had an issue with it. MacOS is very good at paging to it's super-fast SSD.
The iPhone 15 Pro that launched some months ago has 8G
8G is paltry on a desktop computer that should last years.
8G is paltry on a desktop computer that should last years.
I have a 2016 Macbook pro, and I don't think I've ever seen it use more than 8GB (I have 16GB RAM). Just testing now with chrome tabs open including weather radar, libreoffice, and firefox, and still using just under 8GB RAM and 1GB swap.
I'm on a 2019 MacBook Pro and currently using 13Gb RAM. About 10 safari tabs open, books app, and a lightweight IDE.
What's the breakdown in memory usage?
Not when you compare against other devices and consider that bloat is a thing and programs and websites use more RAM now than they did to accomplish essentially the same thing.
If Apple was asking $600 that might be OK, but at $1600? How many laptops at that price point have 8GB RAM? Heck a $400 Steam Deck has 16GB.
If Apple was asking $600 that might be OK, but at $1600? How many laptops at that price point have 8GB RAM? Heck a $400 Steam Deck has 16GB.
Add on to that the observation that memory for your average consumer computer is something of an arms race between the manufacturer of the consumer's computer and the developers of the software they'll use.
Manufacturers want to have a computer with enough memory that it never feels like a constraint to the user (and blog posts like this one enjoin them to do that).
At the same time, developers of software want to consume as much memory as possible-- up to the point where they've used it all and any extra becomes noticeable as perf problems to the user.
So Apple keeping their default memory offering low could be seen in a certain noble light...like honoring a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Manufacturers want to have a computer with enough memory that it never feels like a constraint to the user (and blog posts like this one enjoin them to do that).
At the same time, developers of software want to consume as much memory as possible-- up to the point where they've used it all and any extra becomes noticeable as perf problems to the user.
So Apple keeping their default memory offering low could be seen in a certain noble light...like honoring a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
It is not a ton if you're using the laptop for professional software development or for professional whatever software work that would call for professional hardware - I am specifically excluding professional work that can be done on a MacBook Air from 2017.
Honestly Apple holding the line on memory probably helps pressure developers to optimise.
When people say they need 16gb of ram to have a browser with 200 tabs, a chat messaging program, and an audio player I really wonder what they're smoking. That could be done on maybe 4gb, 8gb would make it easier to handle things like tabs with high resolution video.
You only NEED ram for what is actively being used. If you aren't actively using 199 tabs, you don't need them in memory.
When people say they need 16gb of ram to have a browser with 200 tabs, a chat messaging program, and an audio player I really wonder what they're smoking. That could be done on maybe 4gb, 8gb would make it easier to handle things like tabs with high resolution video.
You only NEED ram for what is actively being used. If you aren't actively using 199 tabs, you don't need them in memory.
Absurd behavior from a company who spent a fortune on an ad for their environmental initiatives to essentially ship e-waste to force your hand to the higher price.
Yes it's e-waste, it can't be upgraded, it can't be amended later those machines are under performing for life for essentially saving a few dollars just to give the false idea the machine is cheaper than they actually want to sell it at.
Yes it's e-waste, it can't be upgraded, it can't be amended later those machines are under performing for life for essentially saving a few dollars just to give the false idea the machine is cheaper than they actually want to sell it at.
> As I write this, with just a handful of browser tabs open, Slack, and a distraction-free writing app (iA Writer—it’s great), I’m consuming just about 11GB on my M2 MacBook Air.
Yeah it does not matter how memory you have, the system is supposed to use as much as it can from it. So this does not mean anything. I’m not saying 8GiB is enough, just that this particular sentence makes no sense.
Yeah it does not matter how memory you have, the system is supposed to use as much as it can from it. So this does not mean anything. I’m not saying 8GiB is enough, just that this particular sentence makes no sense.
Counter to title, as a non-mac-user I probably benefit from entry-level Macs having 8GB vs 16GB RAM - it increases pressure on devs to actually try to reign in their ballooning web/Electron apps when resource waste becomes noticable on modern hardware.
Accounting for second-order effects over longer timeframes it could be a net benefit for desktop users.
8GB should be plenty. That it isn't is a software problem.
Accounting for second-order effects over longer timeframes it could be a net benefit for desktop users.
8GB should be plenty. That it isn't is a software problem.
It’s a weird argument. It’s more weird because Apple isn’t the only computer manufacturer.
I’ve never sat in a software development meeting in which the amount of RAM on customer machines was discussed, let alone used as an argument in favor of spending significant time doing software optimizations.
I would be very surprised if Apple selling laptops with 8GB of RAM had any effect whatsoever on software development priorities.
I’ve never sat in a software development meeting in which the amount of RAM on customer machines was discussed, let alone used as an argument in favor of spending significant time doing software optimizations.
I would be very surprised if Apple selling laptops with 8GB of RAM had any effect whatsoever on software development priorities.
More likely to manifest as "PM complains that our app runs like dogshit on their new computer, just like those user reports we have been ignoring until now"
I don’t think it will work:
• Devs and their managers don’t use the 8GB version.
• Electron is used because it’s cheap to develop for. You can hate its RAM-eating guts all you want, but for cross-platform UIs there’s no competition. Nobody wants to pay for maintenance of 5 separate front ends in 3 languages.
• Devs and their managers don’t use the 8GB version.
• Electron is used because it’s cheap to develop for. You can hate its RAM-eating guts all you want, but for cross-platform UIs there’s no competition. Nobody wants to pay for maintenance of 5 separate front ends in 3 languages.
Unfortunately if you use typescript (tsc) it absolutely gobbles memory up
So your use-case may require more and the entry-level model may not be an appropriate choice for you. I can also come up with dozens of not-too-uncommon scenarios where 16GB won't suffice, either (4k video editing + commonly mandated corpware, for one).
My cheap student laptop in 2012 had 32 GB ram. My laptop at work ~6 years ago 64 GB.
That we still have to care about memory is insane to me.
That we still have to care about memory is insane to me.
How does it feel to be rich? :)
The problem is Macs are not for poor people. They are the Bentleys and Mercedes of the laptop world.
All prices for everything in the brand are overinflated, because you are paying for the brand and prestige.
You want Honda prices for upgrades on your Mercedes.
An equivalent Windows laptop can do mostly everything the Mac can do except have an Apple on the lid.
All prices for everything in the brand are overinflated, because you are paying for the brand and prestige.
You want Honda prices for upgrades on your Mercedes.
An equivalent Windows laptop can do mostly everything the Mac can do except have an Apple on the lid.
> An equivalent Windows laptop can do mostly everything the Mac can do except have an Apple on the lid.
Or develop / test / use Mac software.
Or even check how Safari works for your SAAS (without resorting to BrowserStack or similar).
Or develop / test / use Mac software.
Or even check how Safari works for your SAAS (without resorting to BrowserStack or similar).
> Or develop / test / use Mac software.
Or even check how Safari works for your SAAS (without resorting to BrowserStack or similar).
You're making my point still. Because you are developing software and testing in the Mac environment, over there everything is more expensive.
Or even check how Safari works for your SAAS (without resorting to BrowserStack or similar).
You're making my point still. Because you are developing software and testing in the Mac environment, over there everything is more expensive.
I've got a couple of different Macbooks...My first M1 was a 16gig M1 Air. I usually splurge for more storage (and memory), 16gig was the most that was available at that time.
The machine still works well for development, running VMs, etc. It's no longer my main machine, but it works great for when I have to travel.
The machine still works well for development, running VMs, etc. It's no longer my main machine, but it works great for when I have to travel.
Anyone with a literally useless 8GB macbook, you can send it my way and I'll, uh, dispose of it for you.
Having these amounts of RAM on the base models hurt walk-in retail customers as well. Recently I had a computer die and luckily my boss found some extra funds in our budget that needed to be spent ASAP. I had an opportune moment to get a machine that day, but only if I could walk into the Apple Store and get it off the shelf. I settled for less RAM than I would have liked because a "custom order" would have taken weeks to arrive.
I have no problem with low-memory being an option, but why stock only meager amounts of RAM on the models sold in the store?
I have no problem with low-memory being an option, but why stock only meager amounts of RAM on the models sold in the store?
I bought my 16GB MacBook Air from a store. And FWIW, vendors like B&H and others regularly stock high-spec Macs that you can get overnight.
What a brouhaha. Apparently the people buying MacBook Pro's are so non-professional that they are duped into buying a machine with too little RAM? I think they get a 30 day return free, so if they find out they were duped, why not just upgrade. And while the upgrade cost may be extortionate compared to NewEgg, a 16Gb machine is just $200 more, still considerably cheaper than the same model was in the Intel days.
I suspect that people who have decided to pay extra for the Pro model may actually have some idea how much RAM they need.
I suspect that people who have decided to pay extra for the Pro model may actually have some idea how much RAM they need.
Look, Apple knows what that have. They have a product people want. RAM and storage are their bread and butter margin-padding products and that has been the PC OEM’s game for decades.
There’s no shame in getting your bag.
Apple isn’t the only company that makes laptops with soldered memory, although soldered SSDs are less common. Some of the most popular models from brands like Dell and Lenovo have soldered memory, like the XPS 13 and X1.
Joe Consumer will never take a screwdriver to their laptop anyway, and your company certainly won’t pay for IT people $100 an hour to make upgrades and replace batteries. They’ll just “lease” computers and refresh on a ~3 year cycle because their apes for employees are going to spill coffee and crumbs on the damn thing anyway.
Just call these Apple systems what they are and pretend they cost $200 more than the base price in the first place and get over it. Either the costs makes sense to you or it doesn’t and go buy something else like 80% of the PC market already does.
Nobody seems to mind that brands like Razer and Alienware make overpriced gear because they aren’t as popular as Apple.
Yes, we get it, the base M3 14” “Pro” has “Pro” in the name and it’s not “Pro.” Who fucking cares? There are thousands of products that use the word “Pro” without being “Pro.” And yes the M3 14” MacBook Pro costs $400 less than the M3 Pro equipped model. The $1999 model gained 2GB of memory compared to the previous generation.
There’s no shame in getting your bag.
Apple isn’t the only company that makes laptops with soldered memory, although soldered SSDs are less common. Some of the most popular models from brands like Dell and Lenovo have soldered memory, like the XPS 13 and X1.
Joe Consumer will never take a screwdriver to their laptop anyway, and your company certainly won’t pay for IT people $100 an hour to make upgrades and replace batteries. They’ll just “lease” computers and refresh on a ~3 year cycle because their apes for employees are going to spill coffee and crumbs on the damn thing anyway.
Just call these Apple systems what they are and pretend they cost $200 more than the base price in the first place and get over it. Either the costs makes sense to you or it doesn’t and go buy something else like 80% of the PC market already does.
Nobody seems to mind that brands like Razer and Alienware make overpriced gear because they aren’t as popular as Apple.
Yes, we get it, the base M3 14” “Pro” has “Pro” in the name and it’s not “Pro.” Who fucking cares? There are thousands of products that use the word “Pro” without being “Pro.” And yes the M3 14” MacBook Pro costs $400 less than the M3 Pro equipped model. The $1999 model gained 2GB of memory compared to the previous generation.
> Are the new M3 Macs great computers? Sure.
I don't want to be overly negative on what is intended by this concluding line, but it's part of the problem.
It should re-state the point that has been driven home - the entry level MacBook Pro is a bad product for its audience. Just leave it at that - it doesn't say the whole line suffers the same fate, but it's OK to say it's a bad offering without making excuses for them.
It does mention the issue again after, but don't say they're unilaterally great on the whole if they're not - it gives them justification to dismiss the issue if they are still "great".
The entry level MacBook Pro is not a device you could recommend to the majority of professionals. We all know it. You should either get the Air, or a MacBook Pro with 16GB+.
I don't want to be overly negative on what is intended by this concluding line, but it's part of the problem.
It should re-state the point that has been driven home - the entry level MacBook Pro is a bad product for its audience. Just leave it at that - it doesn't say the whole line suffers the same fate, but it's OK to say it's a bad offering without making excuses for them.
It does mention the issue again after, but don't say they're unilaterally great on the whole if they're not - it gives them justification to dismiss the issue if they are still "great".
The entry level MacBook Pro is not a device you could recommend to the majority of professionals. We all know it. You should either get the Air, or a MacBook Pro with 16GB+.
it's perfect for sitting in meetings and vscode remote work, and/or very professionally SSHing here and there ...
Weren't Apple taking another shot at gaming with some AAA games recently being demoed on Apple silicon? 8GB is barely enough these days with many titles requiring at least 12 to run games at minimum settings, newer releases like Starfield require 16. That's for PC with discrete graphics too.
8GB RAM would be enough. If not companies searched and found a successor for Flash. Is is Electron! It wastes memory, it is slow, it doesn’t integrate to Linux, Windows and MacOS and it allows to deploy bloated JavaScript locally. But it is cheap for them!
Basically the target of companies is avoiding to employ programmers for native applications. These people cost money. And optimization cost money. So they opt to waste our resources. The new ThinkPad/MacBook with soldered RAM does cost us a lot but not them.
And if you just use Googles Chrome - which made all this possible with V8 - you still have a problem. Every website believes it is okay to load JS from literally everywhere and show any kind of animated media. Plus no ad-blocker.
And us, opening hundreds of tabs with Epiphany, Firefox, Safari or Chrome ;)
Basically the target of companies is avoiding to employ programmers for native applications. These people cost money. And optimization cost money. So they opt to waste our resources. The new ThinkPad/MacBook with soldered RAM does cost us a lot but not them.
And if you just use Googles Chrome - which made all this possible with V8 - you still have a problem. Every website believes it is okay to load JS from literally everywhere and show any kind of animated media. Plus no ad-blocker.
And us, opening hundreds of tabs with Epiphany, Firefox, Safari or Chrome ;)
It's not the point, but it doesn't hurt that, at least on macOS the 'real native' APIs are... terrible! SwiftUI only just got rounded borders this year https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71744888/swiftui-view-wi.... People here complain about CSS, but that's been a platform feature since like 2003.
On Windows the UI toolkit story is just as much of a pain, with microsoft reinventing the toolkit every other year, and it still lacks basic layout features solved in CSS.
On Windows the UI toolkit story is just as much of a pain, with microsoft reinventing the toolkit every other year, and it still lacks basic layout features solved in CSS.
Oh. Microsoft invents new APIs and don’t maintain them. Win32, MFC, WinForms, WPF, WTL, WinUI - What is the next? Therefore Windows looks like a patchwork and is hard to use. And half of the UI is literally still Win2k. For applications by others anyway no rules exist.
Linux? Gtk and Qt are maintained for years. They deprecate the old stuff and then a new major release is published. While the old release is maintained and they even care about keeping Gtk3 and Gtk2 aligend and bugs fixed. People complain about upgrades - but actually there are updates and upgrades.
PS: Don’t mention Silverlight.
Linux? Gtk and Qt are maintained for years. They deprecate the old stuff and then a new major release is published. While the old release is maintained and they even care about keeping Gtk3 and Gtk2 aligend and bugs fixed. People complain about upgrades - but actually there are updates and upgrades.
PS: Don’t mention Silverlight.
Unless it lacks the ability to give a MacOSX Look & Feel, I don't see a problem.
Unfortunately, that's kind of the case. SwiftUI on Mac looks like ass
https://twitter.com/nikitonsky/status/1557357661171204098
https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/SystemSettings.html
https://twitter.com/nikitonsky/status/1557357661171204098
https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/SystemSettings.html
electron is quite heavy, but still it will be fine with a few hundred of ram. Electron enabled many people to write cross platform applications with relative ease and now there are projects like tauri that want to achieve that with using less resources.
Wasting users time (factor: 1000) instead of developers' time (factor: 10) is cheaper for company, but it's not an advantage for society. It's why I use Mac OS, you can find quality native apps still. Stuff like Things 3, Bear, iA Writer, Doppler,...
Forced “refresh to update” is the point. No supporting 2-10 years of legacy clients. And bypasses enterprise IT update restrictions.
For what it's worth: here's a youtube video of an M2 macbook air running stable diffusion
https://youtu.be/Zbrd8bSK0zc
Importantly, an 8GB Macbook.
Don't remember building with anything less than 32GB in the last 6 years if not longer. The cost savings of going with just 16GB were just too tiny. 8GB? I can't even remember the time I would have considered that adequate.
I have personal M1 Pro with 16GB, and work M1 Pro with 32GB. I code on both, run Docker, etc. Can't notice any difference in performance.
> In Apple’s case, you have no choice. You can’t upgrade later. You can’t pay anyone else’s price. You have to pay Apple’s exorbitant $200-for-8GB upgrade cost.
Of course you have a choice. If the price isn't right then don't buy it.
> This is pure corporate greed from the world’s biggest and richest technology company, and as Apple customers, we shouldn’t stand for it.
A company is only useful to you if its interests align with yours and if it is producing something worth the money. If a company is not worth your time or money then put your time and money toward something else.
Of course you have a choice. If the price isn't right then don't buy it.
> This is pure corporate greed from the world’s biggest and richest technology company, and as Apple customers, we shouldn’t stand for it.
A company is only useful to you if its interests align with yours and if it is producing something worth the money. If a company is not worth your time or money then put your time and money toward something else.
The issue I have with the base model Mac's being under-memoried is that the base models are the high volume models that have sales and are easier to get at vendors other than the Apple Store.
iPhone's have been under memoried at significant periods during their life, but most stores carried an upgraded model. I find the non base model Mac's often aren't available at launch, have longer lead times and force you to go to the Apple Store where you won't get any discount of any kind and often find a longer lead time even there.
iPhone's have been under memoried at significant periods during their life, but most stores carried an upgraded model. I find the non base model Mac's often aren't available at launch, have longer lead times and force you to go to the Apple Store where you won't get any discount of any kind and often find a longer lead time even there.
How is giving people more options a bad thing? If somebody does want a larger screen and two monitor setup but will only ever be using it for light web, the 8GB machine is probably perfect for them.
And thinking "you shouldn't be paying extra" is just bias. Just select the configuration you need, look how much it costs and figure if this is what you want to pay. You are not paying anything extra. They clearly tell you how much you are going to pay for the configuration you want.
And thinking "you shouldn't be paying extra" is just bias. Just select the configuration you need, look how much it costs and figure if this is what you want to pay. You are not paying anything extra. They clearly tell you how much you are going to pay for the configuration you want.
The point is not that more options is bad, it’s that Apple is marking ram up more than what the author considers a reasonable amount. In the past you could buy a 3rd party sodimm module and pop it in for much cheaper but now you can’t since everything is an SoC now.
The actual complaint implicit in all this is that the upgrade pricing has always been, and still is, pretty expensive.
But that complain doesn't make sense IMO.
There are other laptops you can buy for cheaper. And even Apple has Macbook Air which is much cheaper while still more than enough to do most types of office tasks or internet browsing. So someobody wants not only a Macbook, but also a new Macbook and top model for that matter.
It is like saying you want to buy top of the line Mercedes and complain the options are expensive. Yes, they are expensive, but nobody forces you to buy top of the line Mercedes. If you can't afford, don't complain about it.
There are other laptops you can buy for cheaper. And even Apple has Macbook Air which is much cheaper while still more than enough to do most types of office tasks or internet browsing. So someobody wants not only a Macbook, but also a new Macbook and top model for that matter.
It is like saying you want to buy top of the line Mercedes and complain the options are expensive. Yes, they are expensive, but nobody forces you to buy top of the line Mercedes. If you can't afford, don't complain about it.
Agreed. News at 11: cheapest model of [insert product here] only has [insert low spec here] which is not enough for anything but most trivial uses. Therefore [insert brand here] is bad? How about "do a few minutes of research and buy what fits your requirements"? Or even "buy and return if it's not enough for your requirements"?
And as for non-replaceable RAM, that's the same thing as with battery or SSD or whatever else-- no one makes a fuss about it because no one wants to lug around large heavy laptops. Non-replaceable components is what made these super small and light and blazing fast if you pay for specced up versions.
And as for non-replaceable RAM, that's the same thing as with battery or SSD or whatever else-- no one makes a fuss about it because no one wants to lug around large heavy laptops. Non-replaceable components is what made these super small and light and blazing fast if you pay for specced up versions.
When the "option" is paying $200 for an extra 8GB of RAM or 512GB of storage that would cost 1/10th of that if you bought it as a separate part, yes, it's a bad thing.
Apple computers are reliable for 5 plus years. The additional few hundred dollars to upgrade the memory or storage is peanuts once amortised over the life of a computer.
Apple has a memory opportunity. They've got enough customers that will just blindly pay whatever they ask. They know it and they're charging accordingly
From another point of view this author's arguments may look a little odd.
He has not much problem with Apple charging $1799 for a MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM. His problem is that Apple sells another model with 8GB for $1599. A $200 difference for a 8GB difference, what a ripoff!
Does that mean he'd be happier if Apple sold the base model for $1699 instead of $1599, making the 8GB memory upgrade cost a more reasonable $100?
He has not much problem with Apple charging $1799 for a MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM. His problem is that Apple sells another model with 8GB for $1599. A $200 difference for a 8GB difference, what a ripoff!
Does that mean he'd be happier if Apple sold the base model for $1699 instead of $1599, making the 8GB memory upgrade cost a more reasonable $100?
No, the point is that the 8GB model is just for pretending that the base price is not 1799. The price difference is just apple telling you this (if 8GB were viable, they could not charge that much to unsabotage the machine).
I was hoping they would use better argument then just: 'We need to run Electron apps'. Especially in context of 'pro'.
From the article:
"As I write this, with just a handful of browser tabs open, Slack, and a distraction-free writing app (iA Writer—it’s great), I’m consuming just about 11GB on my M2 MacBook Air."
How the hell did we end up here? This level of waste is mind-boggling. Honestly, this makes me want to run MenuetOS as my daily driver.
"As I write this, with just a handful of browser tabs open, Slack, and a distraction-free writing app (iA Writer—it’s great), I’m consuming just about 11GB on my M2 MacBook Air."
How the hell did we end up here? This level of waste is mind-boggling. Honestly, this makes me want to run MenuetOS as my daily driver.
Ugh! Apple and it's fanbois!
It's useless to argue against and pure waste of time. Don't but their products and don't argue. They are just another greedy, dominating corporate. Nothing more, nothing less. It's how they project in people's mind is good they are. All other stuff of innovation, fantastic product etc etc is just pure marketing gimmick. Nothing works beyond a few years and one still needs to upgrade. Take a ThinkPad and throw it in dust and it still functions even after 12 - 13 yrs with the latest upgraded OS support.
Can anyone show a single apple product that exists? Oh no! They don't have any product that had so much life or upgrade ability since apple sucks cash from time to time from their beloved fanbois!
And yet folks compare it against other products missing the core discussion here about the mind altering behaviour and how apple drives the consumer base while commanding a premium for the silliest of the silly feature or upgrade. That's the command they've over the ecosystem and once one gets caught, there's no turning back.
It's like Hotel California. You can check in anytime, but you can never leave and you pay with your soul.
It's useless to argue against and pure waste of time. Don't but their products and don't argue. They are just another greedy, dominating corporate. Nothing more, nothing less. It's how they project in people's mind is good they are. All other stuff of innovation, fantastic product etc etc is just pure marketing gimmick. Nothing works beyond a few years and one still needs to upgrade. Take a ThinkPad and throw it in dust and it still functions even after 12 - 13 yrs with the latest upgraded OS support.
Can anyone show a single apple product that exists? Oh no! They don't have any product that had so much life or upgrade ability since apple sucks cash from time to time from their beloved fanbois!
And yet folks compare it against other products missing the core discussion here about the mind altering behaviour and how apple drives the consumer base while commanding a premium for the silliest of the silly feature or upgrade. That's the command they've over the ecosystem and once one gets caught, there's no turning back.
It's like Hotel California. You can check in anytime, but you can never leave and you pay with your soul.
As long as people keep buying, companies will keep selling. That is how it is, according to the laws of supply and demand. If you want Apple to stop selling 8 GB machines for that much, convince a large enough contingent of consumers to stop buying. Indeed, Mac sales have been down the past few years.
What are you going to do about it? Nothing. You can do nothing about it. People are going to keep buying it, and "voting with your feet" does nothing. You don't matter to Apple. There is nothing that is going to be done, and this is going to continue.
I had 16GB on my windows PC and was having trouble building our Unity project.
Turns out we now require at least 32GB to build the project, but I just upgraded all the way to 64 because it was so cheap.
btw, if you are wondering, Unity will just hang forever during the build process of you don't have enough ram.
Turns out we now require at least 32GB to build the project, but I just upgraded all the way to 64 because it was so cheap.
btw, if you are wondering, Unity will just hang forever during the build process of you don't have enough ram.
You can always add more swap. /s
Since when does the price of a product relate to the cost of the BOM?
I mean, for many Intel CPUs, they're literally exactly the same products off the manufacturing line that are just binned differently, despite significant price differences in the market.
I mean, for many Intel CPUs, they're literally exactly the same products off the manufacturing line that are just binned differently, despite significant price differences in the market.
I made sure to get 16GB on our ten year old MBP and it is still going strong. I don’t recommend anyone get less on a machine that can’t be upgraded.
Kid is using a framework with 16GB as well. Why? It’s 2023 and cost an extra $40.
Kid is using a framework with 16GB as well. Why? It’s 2023 and cost an extra $40.
If you want more than 8GB then configure your order to have more RAM. If you think you shouldn't have to custom order your laptop to be what you want, then take your money elsewhere in this free market.
This isn't that hard, people.
This isn't that hard, people.
> The cheapest MacBook Pro you can configure with more than 8GB is $1,800!
> the true starting cost of a M3 MacBook Pro is $1,699 because to buy one with only 8GB of RAM is crazy.
Does a MBP with 16 GB of RAM cost $2000 or $1700?
> the true starting cost of a M3 MacBook Pro is $1,699 because to buy one with only 8GB of RAM is crazy.
Does a MBP with 16 GB of RAM cost $2000 or $1700?
This public shaming is very useful. It's all about the money: as long as they are able to charge ridiculous amounts for RAM upgrades, they will do it.
8GB feels like the base model car. It technically gets you there, but you should probably opt for at least the most minimal of upgrades.
Another version of what Bill Gates said: '640K software is all the memory anybody would ever need on a computer.'.
He probably never said that.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534312/the--640k--quo...
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534312/the--640k--quo...
Maybe not, but it's still a valid analogy to what Apple is doing now.
Just think for a moment of a machine with 24KB of RAM which ran the first version of UNIX.
I think this is just about pricing. A Macbook with 8GB RAM is a shitty product. But you get to advertise that Macbooks start at 1599.
Apple does a lot of analytics maybe they see that there's really a group of people who just use the default apps with some light browsing. But I think it's rather unlikely.
Apple does a lot of analytics maybe they see that there's really a group of people who just use the default apps with some light browsing. But I think it's rather unlikely.
But why can't it start at $1600 with 16GB? For hundreds less you can get something like a Surface Laptop 5 or Asus Zenbook with similar builds and hi-res screens with 16GB RAM.
This was one of the reasons that made me switch from iPhones to Android phones.
Hot take:
What would happen if Macs with twice the memory were more common? There’s always an Electron or whatever ready to eat that extra RAM.
Apple is probably doing the low end PC users a favour here, by proxy.
(Not that Apple cares in the slightest, it’s a side effect.)
What would happen if Macs with twice the memory were more common? There’s always an Electron or whatever ready to eat that extra RAM.
Apple is probably doing the low end PC users a favour here, by proxy.
(Not that Apple cares in the slightest, it’s a side effect.)
[deleted]
Having an 8GB version makes it more accessible. Apple could just stop selling it and the complaint about there being a $200 upgrade would no longer be valid.
8GB of LPDDR5X does not cost Apple $200.
Its... Maybe $20?[1][2]
Its so cheap that it probably costs Apple more to manufacture the extra Macbook/CPU SKU, test it, support it and so on than to just sell 16GB as the baseline.
Its literally, purely just to upsell the 16GB version. There is effectively no savings for the consumer even if 8GB is "enough."
1: https://www.dramexchange.com/
2: https://www.mouser.com/c/semiconductors/memory-ics/dram/?typ...
Its... Maybe $20?[1][2]
Its so cheap that it probably costs Apple more to manufacture the extra Macbook/CPU SKU, test it, support it and so on than to just sell 16GB as the baseline.
Its literally, purely just to upsell the 16GB version. There is effectively no savings for the consumer even if 8GB is "enough."
1: https://www.dramexchange.com/
2: https://www.mouser.com/c/semiconductors/memory-ics/dram/?typ...
> purely just to upsell the 16GB version
It’s market segmentation. Memory isn’t generally going to be the only configured difference.
It’s market segmentation. Memory isn’t generally going to be the only configured difference.
I am no expert. I would guess that the kind that can get added to the same package as the CPU might be specialized enough to have a premium over commodity DRAM.
So maybe $30?
It’s clear to be that the 8GB isn’t intended to sell in volume. It’s just there so they can advertise a lower “Starting at “ price. It’s literally just for marketing.
So maybe $30?
It’s clear to be that the 8GB isn’t intended to sell in volume. It’s just there so they can advertise a lower “Starting at “ price. It’s literally just for marketing.
Its just LPDDR5X, packaged the same way smartphone RAM is packaged. It's quite common.
> It’s clear to be that the 8GB isn’t intended to sell in volume.
If they didn't intend to sell it in volume, it wouldn't be the base model.
> It’s clear to be that the 8GB isn’t intended to sell in volume.
If they didn't intend to sell it in volume, it wouldn't be the base model.
> purely just to upsell the 16GB version
It’s market segmentation. Memory isn’t the only difference between those models.
It’s market segmentation. Memory isn’t the only difference between those models.
Right, I forgot about the SSD... But that much NAND is pennies.
Customers don't like market segmentation.
Especially completely artificial, detrimental market segmentation.
Apple's memory and SSD prices are too damn high for what they're giving. Basically ~$200 per 8GB of RAM and ~$200 per half terabyte of SSD. This is well out of line what you pay for both in any other product or standalone, and there's nothing especially good about the RAM and NAND chips they use to justify anything close to those prices. If they were buying SSDs retail off of Amazon and marking them up 30 or 40 percent, that would be a bargain compared to what they charge for SSDs right now, and they're not paying anything close to retail prices themselves.
I think thay the complain here is more that it comes with 8GB of RAM and less that the upgrade costs 200$. Apple fans are people for whom the money are usually not a problem.
They should stop selling 8GB configs, but they shouldn't hike the price by $200 to do it. They'd make the same margin dollars (though not percentage) if they hiked the base prices by $40 and bumped them all to 16GB. But obviously this is Apple we're talking about, and they've been playing these cynical margin games with their customers for 30+ years.
It’s called premium pricing. Apple charges more because people expect them to, given that Apple markets their products as premium products.
What you’re proposing is for Apple to raise the price of the baseline model by $40 so that everyone gets 16GB. But most regular people don’t need 16GB. They don’t have a million tabs and applications open all at once. They use their computers for very basic things and Apple makes them very happy by providing a luxurious product for that.
You can see the same pricing strategy play out in countless other premium products, and not just in consumer goods. Check out the prices on Fluke multimeters or Tektronix oscilloscopes sometime (and compare with UniT and Rigol, respectively).
What you’re proposing is for Apple to raise the price of the baseline model by $40 so that everyone gets 16GB. But most regular people don’t need 16GB. They don’t have a million tabs and applications open all at once. They use their computers for very basic things and Apple makes them very happy by providing a luxurious product for that.
You can see the same pricing strategy play out in countless other premium products, and not just in consumer goods. Check out the prices on Fluke multimeters or Tektronix oscilloscopes sometime (and compare with UniT and Rigol, respectively).
> most regular people don’t need 16GB. They don’t have a million tabs and applications open all at once
First, I don't know a lot of regular people who DON'T have 20-30 tabs open minimum. And the #1 consumer of RAM for "regular people" is browser tabs. Just a "normal" page with tons of ads is eating a tremendous amout of RAM, and most people would like to keep dozens open. Not to mention running a half dozen Electron apps at once like Slack, Teams, etc. It's been a decade plus of ever-growing OS and software bloat and Apple's base model 8GB hasn't changed in all this time. So, if 8GB was just enough then, it can't possibly be enough for those same consumers now.
First, I don't know a lot of regular people who DON'T have 20-30 tabs open minimum. And the #1 consumer of RAM for "regular people" is browser tabs. Just a "normal" page with tons of ads is eating a tremendous amout of RAM, and most people would like to keep dozens open. Not to mention running a half dozen Electron apps at once like Slack, Teams, etc. It's been a decade plus of ever-growing OS and software bloat and Apple's base model 8GB hasn't changed in all this time. So, if 8GB was just enough then, it can't possibly be enough for those same consumers now.
I have the usual variety of machines and I like to keep the old ones running for "regular people" in the family.
Yesterday an older machine with 4GB of actual memory and 12GB of paged memory on a fast drive running Windows 10 (I know, not an Apple story) died mid use and auto rebooted.
The cause?
Google Chrome, 14 tabs, 8 inactive, an app running extracting subtitles from a queue of MKV files, a terminal window and ... <drumroll> .. windows update triggered to sanity check for new updates in the background.
The (windows) update checks are getting pretty damn heavy these days, you can hear the drives thrashing in the background as every critical file is version and CRC checked and who knows what else these days.
The failure and rebooting was likely linked to my hard limit on paged memory - just this dedicated 12 GB partition and no more .. but the workload was light by any past standard and it's the first instance of the updater kicking in and exhausting resources.
Yesterday an older machine with 4GB of actual memory and 12GB of paged memory on a fast drive running Windows 10 (I know, not an Apple story) died mid use and auto rebooted.
The cause?
Google Chrome, 14 tabs, 8 inactive, an app running extracting subtitles from a queue of MKV files, a terminal window and ... <drumroll> .. windows update triggered to sanity check for new updates in the background.
The (windows) update checks are getting pretty damn heavy these days, you can hear the drives thrashing in the background as every critical file is version and CRC checked and who knows what else these days.
The failure and rebooting was likely linked to my hard limit on paged memory - just this dedicated 12 GB partition and no more .. but the workload was light by any past standard and it's the first instance of the updater kicking in and exhausting resources.
4GB with Windows seems to be bad to a degree I didn't previously realize. A friend had been assigned a Surface Go 3 from work, and it had a current or recent gen i5 or something, and 4GB of non-upgradeable RAM. My friend assumed she had malware, turns out the OS just consumed 2.5GB or so of RAM, and more than a couple of tabs or programs wouldn't just slow it down, it essentially locked up. It really only functioned after a reboot and before you tried to do anything. As much as I'd like to shame Apple for its 8GB junk, the Surface Go 3's 4GB RAM floor is an absolute travesty.
That's not the only other alternative.
The comparison with Windows laptops isn't apt (yes, I know I avoided the obvious pun there)
The SoC design of Apple silicon makes an 8GB M3 MBP faster than a 16GB Intel machine.
The SoC design of Apple silicon makes an 8GB M3 MBP faster than a 16GB Intel machine.
Upgrading to 16GB costs as much as dinner for two at a moderately nice restaurant.
Where do you live? I pay half that to take my family of 5 out.
Any major US city? Dinner for two with my wife is ~$200, yeah...? (I'm not even in California or NYC)
[deleted]
You’ll certainly get close to that in SF with a couple drinks at $20 a pop.
[deleted]
[deleted]
For $899 (on sale sometimes), the 8GB M2 Air is absolutely a steal. The screen quality, thinness, battery life, build quality, SoC, quietness, coolness, metal enclosure, touchpad, and speakers are simply unmatched by anything in the PC world at that price - sometimes any price. Those things cost Apple money. Other PC makers cheap out on them. In order for Apple to earn higher margins, they make the RAM and storage upgrades very expensive. So the base versions actually offer great values. It's the upgraded RAM/storage that decreases the value but still good value overall considering what you're getting.
I understand why 8GB is still the base. Everything except the RAM is outstanding and unmatched. Apple makes the money on RAM and storage upgrades.
Perhaps Apple will start at 12GB for M4 generation. Perhaps the arrival of local LLMs will skyrocket RAM upgrade demand such that Apple can start the base at 16GB and still have plenty of people who want to upgrade to 32GB. The problem for Apple will always be if they can increase the base without hurting upgrade profit.
On a slightly related note: $/GB for RAM hit a wall starting in 2011. https://assets.ourworldindata.org/grapher/exports/historical...