Why are apple products always so anemic on memory?
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59651 readers
2744 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Greed, it lowers the advertised price, but once you spec it decently you've added a grand in extras
Price discrimination based on memory loadout is real, but it's not specific to Apple, either.
Because there are two types of mac users:
- People that ate buying them with their own money because they're trendy and just using them as glorified Internet browsers. 16gb is plenty.
- People using them professionally so their company is paying and Apple can over charge for the necessary memory upgrade
I have an m2 8 gb. And it’s plenty. It’s just a browsing/discord/stream box basically.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Golly, thanks Apple. It's not like I can go buy a 256GB DIMM right now. 16GB what a joke.
for the same price other laptops sell for 64GB
what a bargain
Let me know how many multiple thousands of dollars it's going to cost for a MAX variant of the chip that can run three external monitors like it's 2008.
load more comments
(15 replies)
Welcome to 2010
I upgraded from 8GB to 16GB like 2 months ago.
And it probably won't be able to be upgraded by the user, which should be the bare minimum.
And it ~~probably~~ absolutely guaran-fucking-teed won't be able to be upgraded by the user, which should be the bare minimum.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
“640k ought to be enough for anyone.”
i could run wing commander 2, ultima underworld, and lands of lore. who needs any more?
EMACS: Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
It’s amazing that with transparent huge pages in Linux I can have memory pages bigger than that entire 640k.
My CPU's L1 cache is larger than that 640K system's main memory.
Considering that RAM is shared with the GPU, it's still not enough.
It's OK - for an extra $400 they'll sell you one with an extra $50 worth of RAM.
$800 for $30 of ram
"yeah but that's like having 32GB on a lame PC"
It's about time.
I know it's not a like for like comparison, but the Pixel 9 Pro that launched this month has 16gb of RAM.
I remember back in the early 2000s when I saw a PDA with a 232mhz cpu and 64mb ram, and I realized how far technology had come since I got my computer with a 233mhz cpu and 64mb ram...
Obviously different architechtures, but damn that felt strange...
Yup, while the current iPhone 15 Pro is the only model which has 8 GB of RAM, with the regular iPhone 15 having 6 GB. All iPhone 16 models (launching next month) will still only have 8 GB according to rumors, which happens to be the bare minimum required to run Apple Intelligence.
Giving the new models only 8 GB seems a bit shortsighted and will likely mean that more complex AI models in future iOS versions won't run on these devices. It could also mean that these devices won't be able to keep a lot of apps ready in the background if running an AI model in-between.
16 GB is proper future-proofing on Google's part (unless they lock new software features behind newer models anyway down the road), and Apple will likely only gradually increase memory on their devices.
If you were being cynical, you could say it was planned obsolescence and that when the new ai feature set rolls out that you have to get the new phone for them.
I would say it is more so they can advertise a lower price. But then expect you to get the more expensive ones as the bare minimum is just not enough.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Pretty much what NVIDIA is doing with their GPUs. Refusing to provide adequate future proof amount of VRAM on their cards. That's planned obsolescence in action.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
...in 2030.
It’s because AI needs a not a ram. I think Apple did not expect or plan for ai which shows in the fact that only the latest pro phone can have Apple intelligence. It’s because that phone has enough ram.
Now they will boost ram across the board because Apple intelligence will not run well without it.
Depending on pricing, I may actually buy a MacBook in 2025.
I’ve wanted one since the m1, but I’ve held out until 16gb was the starting amount of ram.
Or you could just get just about any other non-mac system that lets you upgrade RAM easily when you need too...
Just stop supporting Apples soldered in BS
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but most things and light laptops have had soldered ram for many years now. There are exceptions, but they’re few and far between.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Isn't Apple the company that charges $5k+ for 16GB? All while intentionally deprecating the hardware within 2 years. /s
I've had to support their products on a professional level for over a decade. I will NEVER buy an Apple product.
I've had to support their products on a professional level for over a decade.
Their enterprise stuff....can only be described as a quintessential example of an ill-conceived, horrendously executed fiasco, so utterly devoid of utility and coherence that it defies all logic and reasonable expectation. It stands as a paragon of dysfunction, a conflagration of conceptual failures so intense and egregious that it resembles a blazing inferno of pure, unadulterated refuse. It is, in every conceivable sense, a searing, molten heap of garbage—hot, steaming, and reeking with the unmistakable stench of profound ineptitude and sheer impracticality.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›