> iMac is now the only 32GB capable machine that they sell.
The Mac Pro supports up to 64GB of RAM.
The Mac Pro supports up to 64GB of RAM.
Of course, you can buy a similarly capable Dell (OSX not included) for less, but you lose the hassle-free Macintoshness.
Financial sanity, mostly. Those things cost $10,000+
You don't need a mac pro if your only reason for having a Mac is to run Xcode.
Is not ideal to have more than 1 machine.
The inconveniences of using another platform (or lack of support with macOS on unsupported hardware) far outweighs the slight benefit of 32gb vs 16gb of ram.
We don't buy for years-ago needs, but for now-and-future.
And even ignoring this: Is also signaling. We expect top-of-the-line machine for work.
IF we use at FULL capacity OR NOT, is not the business of Apple.
If you are spending on memory and CPU you don't need, you are spending your money (ou your client's money) foolishly. Spend it on things that'll make you more productive.
Define top of the line. What measurement do you use?
The reason the 2016 MBP has a 2015 Intel CPU is the same reason it has a 16GB memory limit.
Intel hasn't shipped a LPDDR4-capable quad-core mobile processor yet. Even dual-core Kaby Lake mobile processors released already don't support LPDDR4, and even if they did, they're less appropriate for a "pro" machine than previous generation quads.
[In competing devices the only machines that exceed 16GB of RAM will be using regular DDR3/4, (i.e. not low-power) and there will be a significant battery life effect, not to mention running hotter. (More power in == more heat out)
As a developer (i.e. not video/audio/graphics editing/production) the only use I can imagine that would regularly benefit from > 16GB of RAM is running multiple virtual machines to simulate a complex server environment.
This is the exact scenario I personally would like 32/64 GB of RAM to better handle. And yet, I'm still in favour of the highly portable configuration they settled on, rather than a power-hungry, hot machine using regular DDR.
No machine should be left so long without updates. I really don't understand why Apple does that, they should be embarrassed
Margins. The more they can flog the same hardware, the higher the margins: you need less changes to the production chain (which are the real cost) and components get cheaper over time.
Guess who's in charge of Apple since 2013? A production-chain guy.