[awalton]

As a VMware developer, hehehe, you're funny.

As a user of a modern web browser, yeah, 8GB by default isn't going to cut it anymore. Browsers leak like sieves and routinely I have to kill them once they hit 10+GB.

32GB is not even outlandish. It's a simple upgrade. The memory controllers support it. Apple can charge a fortune for it since it's "memory down" instead of DIMMs. Why wouldn't they do it?

[Alupis]

> As a VMware developer, hehehe, you're funny.

You seemingly missed my comment about Apple machines not being developer-oriented. A developer isn't Apple's target user.

> As a user of a modern web browser, yeah, 8GB by default isn't going to cut it anymore

You're clearly exaggerating this by quite a bit. Everyone knows modern browsers consume more RAM than ever before, but 8 GB's is extreme.

(Anecdotally, I tend to have hundreds of tabs open across multiple windows for weeks-on-end, and never have hit 8 GB's consumed by Chrome or Firefox, usually in the 1-3 GB range, and that's when I start to get concerned some tab has a broken script running).

> 32GB is not even outlandish. It's a simple upgrade.

Not really. If maybe 10% of their customers will use it, why include it? Especially right now when Apple seem to be in this kick of removing everything except exactly what they anticipate most of their users need.

> Apple can charge a fortune for it since it's "memory down" instead of DIMMs

I assume you're referencing the chips being soldered onto the mobo instead of being removable DIMM's - Adding way more RAM than necessary today may in fact preclude "upgrade" revenues later when Apple releases a line-up refresh in a few year's time (when average Joe might actually need 32 GB on his laptop).

> Why wouldn't they do it?

Because 32 GB is overkill in 2016 for majority of their customers. "Upgrading" to 32 GB today prevents them from doing so in the future in another line-up refresh (when 32 GB might be more reasonable for the average Mac purchaser).

[kylec]

    You seemingly missed my comment about Apple machines not being
    developer-oriented. A developer isn't Apple's target user.

Why not? A MacBook Pro is standard issue for developers at most companies, and there are probably more developers buying Macs than designers, photographers, or video editors. Also, Apple's flagship products, the iPhone and iPad, require a Mac to develop for, so selling a computer that's good for software development is also an investment in the future of those platforms.

[Alupis]

> so selling a computer that's good for software development is also an investment in the future of those platforms

I'm at a loss as-to why folks still don't "get it" that Apple has never been friendly to their developers. They still don't see developers as their primary target, evidenced by all of the things they've done lately to OSX/macOS, the until-recent ban of virtualizing OSX/macOS, non-replaceable hardware components, etc.

> Also, Apple's flagship products, the iPhone and iPad, require a Mac to develop for

That's not a technical limitation - that's a planned sales channel limitation. Forcefully compelled to purchase their hardware every few years. It's very smart, from a sales perspective, but has nothing to do with Apple favoring developers (actually, one could strongly argue the opposite simply due to this fact).

> A MacBook Pro is standard issue for developers at most companies

Just because this occurs doesn't mean Apple thinks developers are their primary target for their hardware.

It's likely safe to say that no one on HN is in the target demographic for Apple hardware. We aren't "normal" users, and we must admit it. Calls for developer-oriented gear isn't going to come to fruition simply by wishing it.

I agree, it would be nice if they did view developers as being an important demographic, but sadly, there is more evidence to the contrary.

> Why not?

That seems to be a good question for Mr. Cook and gang.

[toyg]

> Apple machines not being developer-oriented.

Considering they're less and less art-professional-oriented (losing SD ports and HDMI, losing jacks, losing dedicated software...), what would these "Pro" machines actually be oriented to? Consumers buy tablets and phones (the laptop market is shrinking); companies buy plasticware with support contracts. Who else is left?

Apple machines are developer-oriented - in fact, I'd argue developers are now their most consistent target market for MBPs. But it's web and app developers we are talking about, so they have no need for special ports and software; they just want basic stuff (cpu/ram/keyboard/screen/usb/wifi) done extremely well so they can show off a bit. And this suits Apple absolutely fine, since they can sell relatively basic machines as "premium" and get nice margins out of it.

As it happens, several sub-segments of the developer category do, in fact, need more ram for VM and suchlike. The necessary chips have been around for some time now, so they're small enough to fit. And there's history: when the current MBPr debuted, in 2012, no other "pro" machine had 16gb in such a slim body; 16gb configurations were all as bulky as 32gb laptops are today.

The 16gb market has caught up now (see Dell XPS et al), so it makes perfect sense to jump ahead again. After all, they had 4 years to prepare.

> may in fact preclude "upgrade" revenues later

The 16gb option has been there since the very first MBPr in 2012. It didn't preclude anything - in fact, it was almost necessary to drive such a huge screen, animations were terrible otherwise. The 15'' was unusable with 4gb (do they even sell that option anymore? nope), and just ok with 8gb. I remember the long line of reddit posts from people who bought the 4gb only to exchange it for the 8gb shortly after (or endlessly moan they had bought a lemon).

> Because 32 GB is overkill in 2016 for majority of their customers.

That's like, your opinion, man. I'm sure that driving a large OLED strip will need a bit of extra memory, for example. And touting the capabilities of Thunderbolt 3 will require very large external screens in cascaded configurations. That stuff ain't gonna work without some serious kick.

Personally, I think the Pro line should (and likely will) have 8/16/32 options. Anything below that is really just for consumers and students, in this day and age - not for people ready to drop $3k on a laptop.

[awalton]

> You're clearly exaggerating this by quite a bit.

No, I'm really not.

2785 waltona 20 0 9812.0m 6.289g 144100 R 74.5 40.2 13309:18 firefox

112 tabs right now.

[Alupis]

That implies every tab is using around 73 MB's of RAM. That's ridiculous!

Do you have a certain tab that consumes more? Or an extension that's not friendly to memory (such as AdBlock). Regardless, 8 GB is not normal.

112 tabs isn't normal either, for an "average joe". Apple sells to, and caters towards, "average joe's".

[Nullabillity]

> Because 32 GB is overkill in 2016 for majority of their customers. "Upgrading" to 32 GB today prevents them from doing so in the future in another line-up refresh (when 32 GB might be more reasonable for the average Mac purchaser).

So yeah, planned obsolescence. And this is a good thing how, exactly?

[Alupis]

> So yeah, planned obsolescence. And this is a good thing how, exactly?

I see no one here making the claim that it is good.

However, planned obsolescence has been Apple's MO for as long as I can recall.

They are a hardware company, after all, and selling you new hardware is exactly how they make revenue.

Bottom line really is - if you want a developer-oriented laptop (with many high performance CPU, GPU, RAM, Disk and I/O Port options), Apple isn't really the place to get it. Apple is a consumer hardware company.