Apple Readies M4 Chip Mac Line, Including New MacBook Air and Mac Pro | Hacker News Reader

Apple Readies M4 Chip Mac Line, Including New MacBook Air and Mac Pro

bloomberg.com

36 pointswalterbell63 comments

Is this the year where Apple increases the memory on the base model above 8GB? Will they finally allows you to have 32GB of memory on the macbook Air? Will Apple finally do like all other computer manufacturers and allow you to connect two external display while having your clamshell open? Or will they just force you to buy the macbook pro max ultra ultimate m4$ if you want any feature?

> Is this the year where Apple increases the memory on the base model above 8GB

Nope, the opposite. They're doubling down.

> In an interview with IT Home, Mac marketing executive Evan Buyze spoke in favor of Macs equipped with 8GB of RAM. According to Buyze, the 8GB of RAM in entry-level Macs is enough for most of the tasks that most users do with these computers. He used web browsing, media playback, light photo and video editing, and casual gaming as examples.

Source: https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/12/apple-8gb-ram-mac/

For today, sure. For 5 years down the line, probably would be a different story...

Also note that he's probably not using a Chromium-based browser for his "web browsing" experience... base Safari does fine with 8GB, even with a large amount of open tabs.

I also think we should progress past 8GB baselines but an interesting point: I said this “5 years down the line” back when the M1 first came out, in 2020. Maybe memory requirement inflation is truly starting to slow down.

> I also think we should progress past 8GB baselines

Perhaps the contrary: 8GB is already a humongous RAM size. Especially if backed up by a fast SSD.

That really should be enough for everyday jobs like the examples mentioned (waaay more than enough, imho).

As for pro-level / servers / serious gamers / engineering jobs etc: sure, go ahead and deck it out to whatever budget & product offerings allow.

Just remember this is a decidedly different market segment than average consumer.

There is still no reason not to have >= 16 GB besides Apple wanting to upcharge its customers since they have no choice. Also no, it's hardly enough unless you're using you Mac the same way you'd use an iPad..

> Especially if backed up by a fast SSD

Ooh, relying on swap to your limited write cycle irreplaceable mass storage seems like a bridge too far to me. I know they do it, but I worry it will shorten the device lifespan if it’s relied on too much.

I am not a fan of the idea that we’d engineer a device to consume a limited resource like that in normal operation.

I think use cases stopped expanding.

I was in the same department but changed my opinion - when my 32GB 2019 Macbook Pro 16" died of sudden heat death, I bought a base-model 8GB M2 MacMini (retail price 650€) and was amazed that it actually is faster for all my day-to-day tasks - this includes software development (C#/ASP.NETcore, TypeScript/React both using VSCode) plus running some (smaller) docker containers. Originally intended as an interims solution, I am still on the MacMini with no intention to upgrade - there is no way I could tell it has only 8GB RAMs and never run into any problems - it is in all matters of regular daily use faster than my ~3000€ 32GB MBP16.

16GB is under $40 today. Less when buying by the million. No reason to limit device longevity besides propping APPL earnings.

I can't wait until 2 years from now they're touting how amazing and groundbreaking 32Gb is and how much better it is than those 2024 laptops with only 8Gb.

Who is they?

Apple and their victims.

> TypeScript/React both using VSCode

If you're using any Jetbrains IDE and want to also run your app/nodejs/etc. you mac will start freezing and and input lagging. Of course it's a pretty bloated Java app that could be optimized a bit more but I can't really blame them, RAM is so cheap nowadays that there is no reason why you'd have less than 16GB or even 32...

Also having any mildly memory intense app + Chrome (with > 10-20 tabs opened) is a no go etc.

I used Webstorm and IntelliJ over the years, and the statement that their IDEs are super slow was true every day in the past 12 years and on every machine I had ever used them :D

As a Rider/VS Code C# user myself, while not a Mac Mini but base 14" MBP with M1 Pro was by far the best $2K I spent on hardware in years.

I think that is in context of the recently launched M3 MacBook Air. The future ones may be different and they’ll change their narrative then.

The core of Apple's problem at the moment is to some extent the opposite - the base M1 Macbook Airs were such a leap forward, that for many people there is no need to buy the M2 or M3 etc.

So while I agree that creating what looks like arbitrary limitations some of the lower models is very annoying ( particularly around external monitor support [1] ) - you can see why commercially they might have done so.

ie when your base computer is 'fast enough' how do you segment the market? ( bearing in mind Apple doesn't have that hardcore gaming market to drive sales at the high end )

Local AI ? Perhaps - their unified memory arch could give them an edge here.

> the base M1 Macbook Airs were such a leap forward, that for many people there is no need to buy the M2 or M3 etc.

Yeah, I'm still on an M1 MBP. I remember when I upgraded, it 2x'd my code's performance, and... it's more than good enough.

The -only- reason it's an MBP is for the external displays. If it wasn't for that segmentation I'd happily be on an MBA.

I'm on an Intel MBP still - not coding as much but still working great

This is where I feel both good as a consumer but I understand why companies are so disincentivized to make good products now.

I'm still on my M1 MBP from when they launched in Fall 2021 and I feel like I could use this thing for another several years easy. There's no chance of the average programmer hitting a wall (except maybe people deeply involved in running local LLMs) that requires an upgrade and they pretty much fixed every single issue with their laptops in one shot.

I do see these artificial limitations in their product lineup. For example, you can't get a 1TB SSD in their 16" MBP unless you get the M3 Max as opposed to the M3 Pro which is a $600 upgrade. Vs in their 14" you can get a 1TB at their middle configuration for only a $200 upgrade from their base configuration.

What else can they really do to get people on an upgrade treadmill ala iPhones (another area which has slowed down significantly)? If they let you configure the base models with 32GB of ram and a 1TB SSD there'd be literally nothing else to upgrade.

They already introduced a new color for the conspicuous consumption types (I haven't even seen one of those super dark gray ones in the wild.)

> I do see these artificial limitations in their product lineup. For example, you can't get a 1TB SSD in their 16" MBP unless you get the M3 Max as opposed to the M3 Pro which is a $600 upgrade.

That's odd. I have no trouble clicking the 1TB button when configuring a 16" M3 Pro system, and seeing the price go up by only $200. But I'm also seeing only $400 to upgrade from M3 Pro to M3 Max (assuming both are configured with 36GB of RAM), so maybe you're in a different country with different pricing and options?

Yeah, exactly this. I'm still on a nearly 4-year-old 16GB M1 MacBook Air. I'm coding SwiftUI, cutting 4K video, and using local 7B models.

If I could spec an M4 MacBook Air up to 32GB of RAM, and it was better with local models, I would strongly consider it, but man… this M1 is still more than enough.

The M2 MBA can be specced up to 24GB. 32 would be awfully nice for local models, but 24 vs 16 is a decent bump in what models can be run (and at what quant). I debated a long time over the 16 vs 24 and ended up making the right choice (local AI was not in my mind at the time at all).

Yes, and it's the same for the M3 MBA. If the M4 remains capped at 24, I'll still consider it, but it'll be less cut and dry. The speed boost would be nice, but literally the only time that I feel CPU-bound is when working with local models.

M1 Max 16” 64GB here, love it. I don’t feel much need to upgrade and doubt the urge will start to creep in until maybe M5 or M6. It chews through everything.

Even better, I got it at a steep discount because I bought it after the M3 came out and M3 Pro/Max was on the horizon.

I like it even more than I did my old 2015 15” pre-touchbar, which is saying something.

You shoudld try artificially restricting the ram to 8GB to how often you run into an OOM error.

On my MBA, the 8GB of RAM isn't the issue, it's that I made the dumb decision to cheap out and get a 128 GB SSD with it (and then working on multiple Rust projects simultaneously). The error I get routinely isn't OOM, it's OOSSD.

> So while I agree that creating what looks like arbitrary limitations some of the lower models is very annoying ( particularly around external monitor support [1] ) - you can see why commercially they might have done so.

This is Apple's strategy for segmenting their products. Their lower priced models typically have a painful limitation or missing feature. For the macbook air it's lack of support for external displays.

> For the macbook air it's lack of support for external displays.

Lack of support for a third display (counting the internal display). And that's not specific to the MacBook Air but rather to the base SoC vs the Pro and Max chips. IIRC the M3 added the slight improvement that closing the lid disables the internal display and allows for driving a second external display.

> The core of Apple's problem at the moment is to some extent the opposite - the base M1 Macbook Airs were such a leap forward, that for many people there is no need to buy the M2 or M3 etc.

I am not willing to spend this much money on a product if it will not serve me well for 4-5 years.

The idea that people should be getting the new machine every year is new, and bad.

Not even talking about upgrades - I'm saying that people buy the lowest configuration available - because it's cheaper and good enough. ie there was a time when the M1 was still available new, although the M2 was out - for many people it made sense to go with the cheaper M1.

Not wrong, but I get an annual allowance that I lose if I elect not to use it. This has the unintended side effect of causing me to care way too much about the annual macbook pro release.

>I get an annual allowance that I lose if I elect not to use it.

Found the ideal Apple consumer

Are these features that most people want, or features that power users who prefer the cheaper MBA want?

FWIW, you can get multiple displays on an MBA with a DisplayLink hub.

> macbook pro max ultra ultimate m4$

The 14" MBP starts at $1599.

I recently discovered that the MBA supports two external monitors if one of them is an iPad via sidecar. I've been using an iPad as an extra screen for my mobile setup (MBA M2) when on the road for a while , and recently upgraded to a 14" portable monitor and was pleasantly surprised that both work at the same time.

Side note: the 14" monitor is a game changer if your priorities are light weight and portability. Roughly half the weight of an iPad and even bigger and only like 60 euros. I went with the 2K resolution model and it's great price/quality ratio wise (using BetterDisplay to bump up into HiDPI mode).

Sidecar works really well. Been using my 12.9” iPad with it and with a cheap folding stand with this setup I’m almost as productive traveling as I am back home with dual 26” monitors.

Notable, the 14” MBP that is $1599 has the same display limitation because it doesn’t have the Pro chip. You need the $1999 one with the Pro chip.

But I agree with you as a generality: there’s a lot of ways for savvy people to buy an Apple system at a somewhat reasonable price that has the features that are segmented away to Pros.

For example, get a previous model. The M2 Pro 14” either Apple refurbished or lightly used. You can also get the current models refurbished (that’s full warranty and essentially new condition).

Could go all the way back to the M1 Pro and it’s really a very similar machine.

Another example: the education discount they’ll give to anyone without verification.

Further example: authorized resellers. Costco has the M3 Pro for $1799.

Yes, I missed that. Looks like the cheapest with a Pro chip is $1999. Microcenter has the same deal as Costco: $1799.

I used a factory refurb for a while last year, an M1 Pro with 16GB of RAM. It handled everything I threw at it (mostly backend dev using Docker Compose) easily, and it was only $1300, which is cheaper than an M3 MBA with the same memory.

It makes sense from Apple's perspective. Normal users don't do anything other than light usage, but businesses need more. Thus they can charge businesses more while home users can still buy a nice laptop for cheap, since consumers are realistically a smaller market and highly price sensitive, while businesses don't care that much about paying a few extra hundred bucks for a computer when they're paying the user of said computer significantly more.

Dell does the same thing in the business world. You void your sales contract if you open up those laptops, too.

If they are selling like hotcakes, do they have to do all of these?

I think you'll find that they don't.

First sentence of the article has "boost sluggish computer sales" in it. And you can read Apple's earnings report yourself to confirm that.

So I am not very sure about "selling like hotcakes".

> Is this the year where Apple increases the memory on the base model above 8GB? Will they finally allows you to have 32GB of memory on the macbook Air?

This reasoning makes no sense.

You are talking about the cheapest and lowest spec laptop Apple sell, designed for consumers, not pros.

Do you complain the base level Porsche is slow? Do you complain the base level Tesla has a short range? Do you complain Nvidia’s base card can’t run monster models?

None of those make any sense, those are the cheapest base model from each company, and each company sells higher spec versions of those products.

The base model is slow and cheap. If you need higher performance, buy the model that has ‘pro’ in the name, that is what its for.

> Do you complain the base level Porsche is slow?

It's certainly not "slow" though...

> Do you complain the base level Tesla has a short range?

Again, the range is still pretty good compared to most other EVs

> The base model is slow and cheap. I

RAM is relatively cheap and the impact on price would be minimal. However Apple's business model is in large part based on making money from upgrades because they can charge obscenely inflated prices for memory/storage because their customers don't have a choice.

You missed the point entirely.

The base level Porsche is absolutely slow compared to the top-end.

The base level Tesla has vastly less range than the top-end.

The base level card from NVidia is a joke compared to the top end.

Companies make a range of products to suit a range on consumers and needs.

The idea that the cheapest, smallest and lightest laptop Apple make should be more geared towards pros is laughable, doubly so when they literally have a product called "Pro" that doesn't precisely what you want.

> The base level Porsche is absolutely slow compared to the top-end.

It's still very fast compared to a 100 hp budget car (HP is selling 8GB laptops for $300 and you can get a 16 GB one for $500 with 512 GB of storage, the Air starts at $1000, is Porsche offering models with 100 engines?)

> The base level Tesla has vastly less range than the top-end.

Vastly is an exaggeration but let's say so. It still has a much larger battery than budget EV with ~30 kWh batteries)

> You missed the point entirely.

I don't think so.

> geared towards pros is laughable

I didn't say anything about pros. A 16GB + 512GB laptop is certainly not "geared towards pros" and Apple only gives you half that.

> Companies make a range of products to suit a range on consumers and needs.

Maximizing profits comes first in this case. Apple uses segmentation to up charge their customers for upgrades (at obscene margins) because their clients have no other options if they want macOS. Again an extra 8GB would cost peanuts...

You're complaining that Apple sell a laptop with specs you don't want, while they sell a laptop that does have the specs you want.

Utter nonsense.

I think you just want something to complain about.

I wasn't complaining just replying to your somewhat silly analogies...

The whole thread was basically about Apple purposefully crippling base/cheapest configs (which most uninformed people tend to buy) to maximize their profit margins and make their laptop less future proof

> Apple sell a laptop with specs you don't want, while they sell a laptop that does have the specs you want

Of course they actually don't. There is no 32 GB or 64GB MacBook Air.

> I think you just want something to complain about.

Perhaps, other people prefer complaining about other people complaining so to each his own, I guess...

Who needs 32 GB of memory on a MacBook Air? If you even know what gigabytes are, and you want more of them, you're likely not the target audience.

No one needs 32GB, the same way no one needs a MacBook Air: you could very well lug around an iMac or a tower PC if you don't actually need macOS. That doesn't stop me from being annoyed at the arbitrary market segmentation that Apple enforces to get me to buy one of their "Pro" machines just because I want more memory, thereby sacrificing the portability of the device for slightly better thermal management or a CPU with better performance.

Also, in the past, I could have bought the base device and bought a couple sticks of memory to upgrade the memory. Now, I cannot do this because of anti-consumer decisions that apple made to prevent user upgrade of memory. The least they could do is offer me the possibility to pay their inflated price for more ram.

Why would you need a Macbook pro if you could get a >= 32GB MacBook Air unless thermal throttling is an issue for your use case?

Better screen. Better speakers. Better connectivity. Bigger Battery.

I believe the new M4, if it was really designed with on device AI in mind, would have at least 12GB as basic. ( 6GB x2 ) Making customer want to upgrade Mac with new AI capabilities.

Apple would likely keep M2 or M3 Mac around with 8GB Ram as entry level with limited AI capabilities or with enhancement from cloud.

It would be strange if they didn’t increase it since their phones are getting an increase according to leaks.

http://archive.today/O2NOc

"AI Focused"

I really wish instead we'd concentrate on stuff like CPU speed and Memory Bandwidth/Latency.

As much as I think "ai focused" everything is just the cool thing of the moment that everyone feels mandated to add ... Is better CPU speed really something that would have an impact for you right now ? Feels like almost everything is either easily running on CPU several generations behind, or so out of reach a mere increase is not going to achieve anything compared to dedicated hardware

Yes. For whatever reason, software developers will write code that is noticeably slower every year, out of convenience for themselves, rather than the end user. We're on a continuous treadmill of "UI Redesigns" and "newer cooler languages" that ultimately do nothing for the end user except make usage latency slower. The unfortunate fix is "get a faster gizmo"

Apple's M-series chips already have best in class CPU performance and memory bandwidth. How much more power do you need?

I wonder if this will help apps like rewindai? It really bogs down the M1 Pro.

"designed to highlight artificial intelligence." Here we see marketing over engineering. I do not want A.I hardware, all the useful stuff has to be done in the cloud anyways. Any HW accelerated algs for mac silicon are very temporary and not portable. Selling me a feature that will not be useful to me is plainly fraud and low quality.

What I want is forward progress on ergonomics, more memory, storage, and higher single core speeds. Apple couldn' deliver that with M3, and that is why nobody is buying it. Fire the marketers and make better hardware.

Your post is rather grey but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with what you're saying. I have yet to see any practical application of doing AI on a Mac, it all seems to be hobbyist stuff for the most part.

The only arguments for it are privacy and security and I'm unmoved by such arguments.

Apple is not "in the cloud" though, that's not where they compete. So they have to bring AI to the device. A locally running AI engine might have some useful capabilities (not sure), but yes, it's never going to be LLM or something like we talk about when we discuss AI.

Saying that AI is only ever in the cloud is limiting. From this model, we should all just be running portable web terminals - well, I guess we already are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com