16GB of RAM Could Be the New Minimum in Apple's Upcoming M4 Macs
macrumors.com
macrumors.com
It's by far the most sustained criticism the company has ever had with many other criticisms stemming from the same fundamental goal of upcharging and future sales
The former is user-changable and the latter isn't. The latter allows much higher frequencies that measurably increases the fps in games.
Llama 8G loads and runs pretty well on the new M-series Macs with a reasonable amount of RAM.
So it's always struck me as a bit arrogant that people on here say that they shouldn't offer the 8gb base model, even though it runs well and there are plenty of people who are served by that computer.
I don't understand why should basic users, schools and colleges need for pay more for mac systems just because a bigger number would please a few people in a chat room somewhere? It's disconnected from reality.
It's also clear that they haven't ever tried using one of these computers. There's plenty of head to head comparisons between the 8gb and 16gb m3 models online and the conclusion is always the same: basic users don't need to buy the $200 ram upgrade, but if they're planning on running 20+ tabs in Lightroom or rendering high res output in Final Cut Pro then there are nice speed gains with the 16gb model. It seems to me that people forking out $120 a year for Lightroom, or a few hundred for FCP are probably not struggling to pay for a once off $200 ram upgrade.
While I'm not suggesting that the $200 ram upgrade is value for money, the pricing comparisons given on here aren't ever genuine comparisons anyway. The performance of on-chip unified memory isn't comparable to popping in a few rock-bottom priced DIMMs.
Sometimes people will reply to this saying it's not a problem, because Apple is more than happy to take your upgrade money. They are, yes, but that's not to say there aren't also problems: not every customer will upgrade, and even those who do upgrade might badmouth the company, which might make friends and family less likely to buy an Apple product. I'm also not convinced Apple likes to disrupt their customers' usual purchase cycle, as that introduces uncertainty in their financial projections to shareholders.
Apple spent 3 years selling laptops where the keys fell off the keyboards. The don't care about RAM complaints. Their market is "wants prettier than Windows".
Apple products are extremely popular, and they use RAM (now soldered RAM) as a hardware dongle to discriminate on price by how much computing power a user needs. It's a mini "App Store"-like monopoly built into the motherboard.
What an unbelievably tired cliche. Sure, aesthetics play a part in purchasing but there are PC laptops with similar aesthetics and build quality for around the same price and same lack of upgradability.
Next, you’ll say with a smirk, that they need their Mac laptop to write their novel in a coffee shop.
To be truthful, that's about all they're good for. Macs are media consumption appliances.
If the market wanted "better than Windows" as you claim, the entirety of the corporate world would be running Macs, which they don't. They have near-zero market share outside of a few Silicon Valley companies who do so to stave off the nerd revolt.
Audio/video production has mostly moved back to Windows.
Industrial automation, the PCs running every radio and TV station, every NASA launch - all Windows, some Linux, zero Mac.
Hell, Apple was running Windows in their own factories (via Boot Camp).
Apple designs their hardware using Cadence Allegro and Siemens NX. I'd like to meet the guy that has to admit "I'm a Windows server admin...at Apple."
Developers also love them as a $3000 terminal emulator into a Linux machine, so they can code. In a coffee shop.
Yeah, yesterday I media-consumptioned up a whole new feature for a multi-million dollar web app on my media-consumption appliance.
You can make whatever point you're trying to make without saying things that are outright false. That tends to make people disregard the other things you say.
The one reason to badmouth Apple is their lame laptop screens. They are ultra brittle. Shiny, but mega brittle.
> ... which might make friends and family less likely to buy an Apple product ...
An Apple product I'm not saying never ever again: we may buy a Mac Mini. But I'm never ever buying an Apple laptop again and my wife neither.
I'll never stop to badmouth them: asking 690 EUR to replace the screen on a pristine 13-months laptop paid 1000 EUR "because it's out of warranty" is unacceptable.
No, it's not my fault: I've got a 2017 LG Gram (lighter than any Mac laptop by the way) and that thing is rock solid. It's MILSPEC and people are going to bitch and whine that "MILSPEC means nothing". Yet MILSPEC means:
"My laptop's screen won't break overnight while I'm sleeping" (which is literally what happened to my Mac laptop's screen: I close its lid before going to sleep only to wake up with a broken screen. Tens of pages about that "bend gate" on Apple forums and Apple did nothing to fix the problem).
Apple produces really shitty laptops.
MacBooks are tanks and their build quality is literally state of the art.
But happen to be wrong this time around. Given how much margin Apple's saves on using M4 getting 16GB baseline shouldn't be much problem.
Thus having this as the base line for a laptop is sufficient, too
I personally would hate buying an expensive product I don't know much about being crippled by not selecting an option I did not understand.
Having 16 GB for those customers is a win
See, they haven’t even announced it and my point is made. :p