[wnorris]

What gets me is how Apple markets the improvements in the M series processor. They iterate on these on a yearly basis, yet do not upgrade base model RAM for near a decade.RAM is quite often the limiting factor for current computer longevity. This is especially true of Apple computers as RAM is non-upgradable.

Apple at a minimum should create a cadence of RAM upgrades to coincide with processor upgrades to at least some extent. Otherwise they are selling base model computers that are going to require most users to replace sooner. Conflicts with Apple's environmental efforts.

[foobarchu]

>RAM is quite often the limiting factor for current computer longevity

I think this is an interesting point, because my own experience completely disagrees. I feel like consumer laptop RAM has been stagnated at 8gb or 16gb for about decade now, which is insane as someone who grew up during the turn of the millennium when it was doubling yearly.

Among myself and people I know, the biggest factors for getting a new machine are usually (in order) battery life/consumption, physical condition, storage, and OS support for the hardware. I haven't heard someone say they need a computer with more RAM unless they started using it for new purposes they didn't before (someone getting into video editing, data analysis, etc).

[goalieca]

Apple has put a ton of effort into optimizing software to squeeze more out of less ram. They also have operating system level features like compressed ram.

The whole implied argument about hardware longevity is because software bloats. A responsible thing would be optimizing software for power and resource usage.

[Jochim]

Software bloat isn't the entire argument at all. Hardware also fails.

If it fails in your macbook, or any brand where it's soldered on, you're left with an expensive brick.

I believe that being able to easily and cheaply replace those components matters.