|
|
|
|
|
by replete
946 days ago
|
|
Horse shit. What Apple wants to happen is for you to eat into your soldered SSD's endurance (TBW) through virtual memory swapping out RAM to your storage volume so that you Buy More Stuff. I investigated my unexpectedly high disk writes and made a few changes, disabled some MacOS services, disabled write-caching for video in Firefox etc and this reduced my write volume by tens of gigabytes per day. By this point I think I'd written 50TB of the drives TBW in a year which was significant/ This is particularly relevant if you use a mac with a soldered SSD, because when you approach endurance ratings the drive will probably fail spectacularly and your computer will unrepairable by reasonable means. |
|
On the other hand, the average person who purchases a computer with the knowledge that they need to perform data-intensive tasks will likely also understand that 8/256 is not sufficient for their needs.
Thus, the amount of Mac owners that will realistically actually run into premature SSD failure is probably pretty low.
Apple is just running a multi-pronged strategy here: a “good enough” model for 90% of people, and then a “squeeze every last penny out of them” approach for the people who require performance and are willing to pay the Apple tax.
The actual downsides of this approach are pretty limited, as the swap is fast enough that it won’t create a class of newly disgruntled Mac owners annoyed that their Mac “got slow just like a pc”.
Miserly from their side? Sure. But I’m certain the beancounters weighed every aspect and decided that their RAM budget per board was $2, so 8gb it was. Spending an extra $1.30 for a 16gb LPDDR4X chip would break the bank.
Those are actual, current spot prices on those chips. A 150x profit margin on that upgrade from 8 to 16gb makes for some nice fat CEO bonuses. Where do you think the money to pay Tim Apple his 99 million dollar compensation last year came from?