There's a lot of wrong info in those comments but as far as I can tell it comes down to: at those price points, it's the best cpu+ram combo you can buy.
However, if your specific use case doesn't need massive memory bandwidth then you are indeed better off with a PC CPU and PC RAM for the money.
I don't know about best combo. It's arguable. I still think it's unconscionable to charge so much extra for ram, whatever the case.
It is a memory monster though. Regular/pro/max/ultra are 100/150/400/800GBps. ThreadRipper can take ddr5-5200 memory, and at 4/8 channels between HEDT/Pro, that's only 166/333 GBps. Not bad at all, but not those bonkers high numbers.
Are we arguing about the same unified memory, DDR, LPDDR again ? ( At least people finally understand it is not SRAM cache )
Anyway Apple has been charging the same for memory upgrade regardless of memory type for as long a so could remember ( 15-20 years ). So nothing really new here.
The part that is ‘new’ is that RAM is no longer user serviceable on macs, so you cannot buy a base Mac and upgrade later by adding more ram from an alternate vendor, probably at 1/3 the price.
That said, RAM doesn’t seem to quite be the same performance wise since it’s been integrated into SOC. You seem to get more utility for less RAM - I’m assuming that SSD storage being tightly integrated helps a great deal.
This is a misconception; the RAM is not integrated into the SoC, it’s standard off-the-shelf LPDDR4X (M1) or LPDDR5 (M2/M3), soldered right next to the SoC. The SSD is usually soldered or even socketed in a proprietary connector (in the case of the Mac Studio or Pro and maybe others), somewhere on the main board, just like a PC.
What you're seeing there labelled LPDDR5 is the memory /controllers/, not the memory itself. The silicon area for the amount of DRAM we're talking about would dwarf the IC you're looking at -- and the 3 nm process that the logic is made on is not compatible with deep-well capacitors used for DRAM. There's a significant amount of SRAM on the chip (the SLC blocks, and many other cache blocks), but orders of magnitude less than the external DRAM we're discussing.
> To be precise RAM is soldered on top of SoC in a PoP package.
No, it’s not. A stacked PoP (not “PoP package,” that’s redundant) is used for recent A-series mobile CPUs, but on M1/M2/M3 the memory is soldered on a PCB directly adjacent to the CPU. This allows for better heat dissipation and therefore higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth.
Aside from the question, it should be remembered that in free market economy the price of a thing is (close to) what people are willing to pay for it, not how much it costs to make. I have a feeling that new generations of people need to learn this again every decade or so.
In free market economy people are also free to criticise pricing and raise awareness when something is overpriced. Feels like we shouldnt remind people that we dont live in a corporate dictatorship. We are free to dislike things including pricing.
I am - never buying apple products again for multiple reasons, and i am happy to see people sharing their opinion, so that indeed we can make an informed decision about our vote.
Edit: A company’s value doesnt always equal quality products. Cigarette makers are highly valued and quite detrimental to society and ones health.
Re edit: yes, and? Nobody said anything about the quality of their products. Also, again, nobody said we can’t criticize the price, just that simply talking about it won’t change anything as long as people will keep buying the products.
In my view, the more we educate, the more people will change their view. Most people arent able to consider criteria beyond a nice case design and user interface, and fall for “scary fast” slogans. Which may or may not be accurate. That’s why we need people with knowledge to deep dive into how things work, and share their findings. I once fell for apple’s clever marketing and never again. Looking back at how low quality and specs mabook pros have been i dont see how this changed with recent versions - probably are fast and power efficient as advertised but likely suck in all other areas.
But it's fun to speculate the cost of BoM and guess the profit margins. Probably just regular work for financial analysts but puzzle games for the rest of us.
As someone who thinks that a global socialist/communist system (which we have never had in modern times) would make most people and the planet better off, I agree with you completely. It is not unconscionable for Apple to charge what it does under a Capitalist system. If you think it is, you might be a socialist and not realize it.
Do you have any good recommendations for a serious dive into the trade-offs for a socialist/communist system and comes out pro-socialist, one that takes into account the analysis of Austrian economics as well as the historical tragedies of those (Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ...) who have claimed to rule as socialist?
In ideal capitalism, the basic bargain is increased wealth for all at the cost of there being losers and extreme winners along with failures of endeavors being an essential ingredient to overall societal success. It is based on choices being made by individuals to maximize what they value given the options at hand.
What is the bargain in ideal socialism? Historically, it looks like equality for the non-elites being pushed over wealth creation. Is there a different trade-off being proposed. There are, after all, no solutions, just trade-offs.
In the context of this thread, what would the options in the computer market be in an ideal socialist society? Would there be many choices? Who would make those decisions? Who would make the products and why them? How would one determine how to distribute the product? Why would innovation happen, particularly how would one idea triumph over a differing one, particularly over a status quo idea that pushes out entrenched interests?
Would dissent be allowed? How would it be addressed?
I would also be interested in an honest analysis of environmental stewardship questions of socialist versus capitalist. From what I have read, environmental destruction has been way worse under government management (Soviets were notorious, but also the US military and its private contractors) than private management unless that private management is somehow being directed and/or protected by the government. Is there a reason to believe socialists would be good stewards of the environment? What is the incentive structure of the people in the system to make that happen? Under a true capitalist system, it is not getting sued for destroying other people's properties as well as the ability to profit off of well-managed lands.
Also, under anarcho-capitalism, voluntary associations that can be categorized as socialism/communism can easily arise and would be perfectly acceptable, but the reverse is not true. Why would socialist voluntary associations not be sufficient, i.e., why would enforced collectivization be necessary and morally correct? In a certain sense, anarcho-capitalism is what emerges when the right of secession is taken to the individual level while global socialism is explicitly disallowing any secession. Why is uniform collectivization of all humans under a single controlling entity a good thing?
Again, I am hoping for a reference accepted by pro-socialists that thoughtfully addresses these questions.
Apple does this because they can get away with it. They can get away with it because their devices are that much better, all things considered.
And I'm saying this as a person who hates using Apple products. (Yet keeps recommending them to friends and family. And yes, this confuses the hell out of people.)
that's pretty understandable - you want to own your machine because you know how to handle it, but you don't want your family to own their machine because they will come to you to handle it, or mishandle it themselves
Apple does not need another defence lawyer so I am not one.
But the point so many of you seem to miss, is that for the people that don't want the upgrade, their kit is cheaper. They're letting the upgraders pay for the standard piece of kit. Same goes for the ridiculous price for the monitor stand(s).
All of Apples stuff costs $$$ because we still choose to pay for _it_ instead of going for the alternatives. So a lot of us consider it _better value_ that way; as in: we think that this is the cheaper deal.
You might not understand this, or say that people that buy from Apple are delusional or agreeing to being over charged. But would not be correct. I'm not forced to buy it, I simply participate in a market place where I exchange enough money to get enough value.
So in effect, I'm then also saying that the competing offers are actually too expensive. I would not pay more than $500 for a fully kitted PC laptop because they are simply that shitty.
Monopolies can charge whatever they want and customers have to take it. Apples to oranges ;) comparison: DDR5 server RAM is $4/GB street retail price. 8 GB should cost $32, 16 $64, and 32 $128. (Server ECC and desktop RAM aren't the same, but it's a conservative over-estimate.)
On a Mac Pro, the 128 GB upgrade should cost $512 but it costs $1600.
On a MBP, the 80 GB upgrade should cost $320 but it costs $1000.
On average, Apple charges ~3x what RAM should cost primarily because customers are willing to pay it whether they understand they are being taken or not.
26 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 54.7 ms ] threadHowever, if your specific use case doesn't need massive memory bandwidth then you are indeed better off with a PC CPU and PC RAM for the money.
Yes, the hardware is good, great in fact (seriously, the MacBook Pro’s screen is insane)
But it’s about MacOS/iOS.
Once you start using MacOS/iOS on a daily basis, you never want to go back to Windows/android bloated, ad infected bullshit.
It is a memory monster though. Regular/pro/max/ultra are 100/150/400/800GBps. ThreadRipper can take ddr5-5200 memory, and at 4/8 channels between HEDT/Pro, that's only 166/333 GBps. Not bad at all, but not those bonkers high numbers.
Anyway Apple has been charging the same for memory upgrade regardless of memory type for as long a so could remember ( 15-20 years ). So nothing really new here.
That said, RAM doesn’t seem to quite be the same performance wise since it’s been integrated into SOC. You seem to get more utility for less RAM - I’m assuming that SSD storage being tightly integrated helps a great deal.
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17019/M1MAX.jpg
No, it’s not. A stacked PoP (not “PoP package,” that’s redundant) is used for recent A-series mobile CPUs, but on M1/M2/M3 the memory is soldered on a PCB directly adjacent to the CPU. This allows for better heat dissipation and therefore higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth.
'New' definitely deserves quotes it's only a recent change for desktop Macs - laptop Macs have had non-upgradable RAM for more than a decade.
Apple Silicon Macs (not to mention iPhones and iPads) have never had user-upgradable RAM.
Edit: A company’s value doesnt always equal quality products. Cigarette makers are highly valued and quite detrimental to society and ones health.
In ideal capitalism, the basic bargain is increased wealth for all at the cost of there being losers and extreme winners along with failures of endeavors being an essential ingredient to overall societal success. It is based on choices being made by individuals to maximize what they value given the options at hand.
What is the bargain in ideal socialism? Historically, it looks like equality for the non-elites being pushed over wealth creation. Is there a different trade-off being proposed. There are, after all, no solutions, just trade-offs.
In the context of this thread, what would the options in the computer market be in an ideal socialist society? Would there be many choices? Who would make those decisions? Who would make the products and why them? How would one determine how to distribute the product? Why would innovation happen, particularly how would one idea triumph over a differing one, particularly over a status quo idea that pushes out entrenched interests?
Would dissent be allowed? How would it be addressed?
I would also be interested in an honest analysis of environmental stewardship questions of socialist versus capitalist. From what I have read, environmental destruction has been way worse under government management (Soviets were notorious, but also the US military and its private contractors) than private management unless that private management is somehow being directed and/or protected by the government. Is there a reason to believe socialists would be good stewards of the environment? What is the incentive structure of the people in the system to make that happen? Under a true capitalist system, it is not getting sued for destroying other people's properties as well as the ability to profit off of well-managed lands.
Also, under anarcho-capitalism, voluntary associations that can be categorized as socialism/communism can easily arise and would be perfectly acceptable, but the reverse is not true. Why would socialist voluntary associations not be sufficient, i.e., why would enforced collectivization be necessary and morally correct? In a certain sense, anarcho-capitalism is what emerges when the right of secession is taken to the individual level while global socialism is explicitly disallowing any secession. Why is uniform collectivization of all humans under a single controlling entity a good thing?
Again, I am hoping for a reference accepted by pro-socialists that thoughtfully addresses these questions.
And I'm saying this as a person who hates using Apple products. (Yet keeps recommending them to friends and family. And yes, this confuses the hell out of people.)
But the point so many of you seem to miss, is that for the people that don't want the upgrade, their kit is cheaper. They're letting the upgraders pay for the standard piece of kit. Same goes for the ridiculous price for the monitor stand(s).
All of Apples stuff costs $$$ because we still choose to pay for _it_ instead of going for the alternatives. So a lot of us consider it _better value_ that way; as in: we think that this is the cheaper deal.
You might not understand this, or say that people that buy from Apple are delusional or agreeing to being over charged. But would not be correct. I'm not forced to buy it, I simply participate in a market place where I exchange enough money to get enough value.
So in effect, I'm then also saying that the competing offers are actually too expensive. I would not pay more than $500 for a fully kitted PC laptop because they are simply that shitty.
On a Mac Pro, the 128 GB upgrade should cost $512 but it costs $1600.
On a MBP, the 80 GB upgrade should cost $320 but it costs $1000.
On average, Apple charges ~3x what RAM should cost primarily because customers are willing to pay it whether they understand they are being taken or not.