Quote from: _MT_ on November 12, 2020, 11:36:49

Quote from: S.Yu on November 12, 2020, 00:53:15
8GB RAM for $200, it's Apple :)

:) I'm not sure about US prices, but $200 buys you what, almost 64 GB of top notch notebook RAM? Truly ridiculous. Storage prices got better, at least for the higher options. $200 for 256 GB (256 -> 512 GB) is still out of this world, in line with some of the most expensive enterprise options. But $400 for 1 TB (1 -> 2 TB) is at least in the same universe as the most expensive consumer options. I believe 970 PRO was priced in this region. Although 980 PRO is significantly cheaper IIRC. Considering how cheap you can buy something like 970 EVO (I paid about €110 recently for 1 TB, including EU VAT), it's still ridiculous. Perhaps, what Apple has is better than that, but that's a pretty good SSD and for a fraction of the cost. If I had the choice, I would go with the Samsung, no doubt about that. I would rather have more storage. With such a huge difference in price, I could accept even SATA speeds. There is no way Apple can offer enough performance to be worth it to me. Durability is the only card they could possibly play. Although, again, if I had the choice, I would take replaceable SSD over super durable soldered one. And for other reasons as well (like data recovery or destruction).

To be fair I heard devs mentioning fitting far more into the RAM than the apparent capacity would suggest possible, we've seen iOS devices consistently outperforming Android competitors with far more RAM and this is actually something very similar to iOS, so I'm willing to see how this plays out.
Not that I have a stake in this though, I've never liked MacOS and its limited set of software and don't have a reason to have to force myself to live with Apple's ongoing removal of ports.

Quote from: S.Yu on November 12, 2020, 00:53:15
8GB RAM for $200, it's Apple :)

:) I'm not sure about US prices, but $200 buys you what, almost 64 GB of top notch notebook RAM? Truly ridiculous. Storage prices got better, at least for the higher options. $200 for 256 GB (256 -> 512 GB) is still out of this world, in line with some of the most expensive enterprise options. But $400 for 1 TB (1 -> 2 TB) is at least in the same universe as the most expensive consumer options. I believe 970 PRO was priced in this region. Although 980 PRO is significantly cheaper IIRC. Considering how cheap you can buy something like 970 EVO (I paid about €110 recently for 1 TB, including EU VAT), it's still ridiculous. Perhaps, what Apple has is better than that, but that's a pretty good SSD and for a fraction of the cost. If I had the choice, I would go with the Samsung, no doubt about that. I would rather have more storage. With such a huge difference in price, I could accept even SATA speeds. There is no way Apple can offer enough performance to be worth it to me. Durability is the only card they could possibly play. Although, again, if I had the choice, I would take replaceable SSD over super durable soldered one. And for other reasons as well (like data recovery or destruction).

Quote from: _MT_ on November 11, 2020, 20:08:58

Quote from: Rudolf K. on November 11, 2020, 15:38:13
Dell charges $200 more for a slower computer.
...
How do you know that? We are talking about custom memory packages with unknown specs.

While the base prices might be acceptable, there is no denying the extras are a rip off.

Even if they indeed were using something super expensive, there is hardly any need for it. There are some very high performing, high quality components from reputable brands on the market cheap as chips in comparison. The RAM is definitely a rip off. Just look at something like HyperX from Kingston. The storage... maybe, if they're using durable, enterprise grade flash. But I doubt it. And while something like that could make sense in a Mac Pro, it makes less sense in a MacBook Air. They're asking so much money because they can. Because enough people will pay it. That's it. End of reason.

8GB RAM for $200, it's Apple :)

Quote from: Rudolf K. on November 11, 2020, 15:38:13
Dell charges $200 more for a slower computer.
...
How do you know that? We are talking about custom memory packages with unknown specs.

While the base prices might be acceptable, there is no denying the extras are a rip off.

Even if they indeed were using something super expensive, there is hardly any need for it. There are some very high performing, high quality components from reputable brands on the market cheap as chips in comparison. The RAM is definitely a rip off. Just look at something like HyperX from Kingston. The storage... maybe, if they're using durable, enterprise grade flash. But I doubt it. And while something like that could make sense in a Mac Pro, it makes less sense in a MacBook Air. They're asking so much money because they can. Because enough people will pay it. That's it. End of reason.

If you look at Apple's website, the wording "M1 chip models available starting 11.17" implies that the MacBook Pro 13 and Mac mini will get another, probably more powerful processor(s) at a later date. They don't use that wording with MacBook Air (M1 is probably all we're going to get). This more powerful unit could then be in the base MBP 16.

Quote from: why should i on November 11, 2020, 02:16:01
Why is apple still dicking people around with these pathetic storage and RAM offerings? 256gb and 8gb of RAM on a $1300 notebook marketed as "PRO" is just ridiculous in 2020.

Dell charges $200 more for a slower computer.

Quote from: why should i on November 11, 2020, 02:16:01
Especially when the extra storage and ram only cost about $50 more at most!

How do you know that? We are talking about custom memory packages with unknown specs.

Quote from: vrdev on November 11, 2020, 04:55:10
Exactly! It's just silly how imbalanced this is from a product design perspective. Stupendous CPU power and excellent iGPU power and then...max 16GB???

What is that, like 10 seconds worth of 8K ProRes footage?

And the RAM is shared!! iGPU speeds that warrant 6GB of RAM as a dedicated card, but let's say you can push the graphics fill rate to require 6GB of RAM as they're claiming. You're going to leave 10GB for system?

Smartphones are coming out with 16GB! I'm not sure why honestly, but it makes the point that we should be beyond this crap. Certainly in a Pro laptop you better at least support 32GB if you do even 4K video work, let alone 8K!

I think your are misunderstanding what these products are. They are entry-level chips. We are talking about a $999 laptop here. Their competition is Dell XPS 13" and the like.

Higher-end chips with more computational power and more RAM will come out later. Apple starts the rollout with the low-end.

By far the most sensical reason for the 16GB cap is that they simply can't support more yet. Which I think is fine, they just shouldn't have bragged about pro workflows that absolutely need more RAM.

Exactly! It's just silly how imbalanced this is from a product design perspective. Stupendous CPU power and excellent iGPU power and then...max 16GB???

What is that, like 10 seconds worth of 8K ProRes footage?

And the RAM is shared!! iGPU speeds that warrant 6GB of RAM as a dedicated card, but let's say you can push the graphics fill rate to require 6GB of RAM as they're claiming. You're going to leave 10GB for system?

Smartphones are coming out with 16GB! I'm not sure why honestly, but it makes the point that we should be beyond this crap. Certainly in a Pro laptop you better at least support 32GB if you do even 4K video work, let alone 8K!

Why is apple still dicking people around with these pathetic storage and RAM offerings? 256gb and 8gb of RAM on a $1300 notebook marketed as "PRO" is just ridiculous in 2020.

We shouldn't have to pay 15% more on an already expensive piece of hardware just to get it usable for actual work. Especially when the extra storage and ram only cost about $50 more at most!