[effie]

Upgradability of RAM isn't the issue, it's the price of getting access to that RAM. On PC you get it for cheap, you just pay for the RAM modules. On Apple, you get it for arm and a leg, as you don't pay for the modules, but for the privilege to use their higher end model with enough RAM.

[throwaway55110]

Another point of view:

The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing them with revenue from the higher end models. If RAM upgrades were priced based on RAM stick costs, the base model would have to be much more expensive and less people would have access to it.

Professional workstations have always cost an arm and leg - both arms and both legs usually, for example a SGI workstation used to cost 50K dollars! I think it's great that Apple also produces a subsidized low cost model so more people can get access to it.

[qwytw]

> The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing

Depends what do you mean by "subsidizing".. Obviously their margins on entry level models are lower but I would still bet than they are much higher if not several times higher than the industry standard. They are certainly not selling them at or below cost, they can probably upgrade the base config to 16GB and still make more per unit sold than Dell/HP/etc.

Even MS get rid of 8GB with the new Surface: 13.8, Snapdragon, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD is $1000, the equivalent 13.6 M3 Air is $1,299 (8GB is $1100). So if Apple is subsidizing their lower-end Macs what on earth is MS doing? Surface is already a premium(ish) tier device and I'd assume their are paying more to Qualcomm than it costs Apple to make an M3 chip.

> the base model would have to be much more expensive

Why? I don't really get this logic. They are pricing their base models at what the market will bear, it wouldn't make sense to sell them at a discount just because they have more expensive models, they'd hike their prices even more if they could.

What they are making from memory/storage upgrades is basically free money on top of already presumably very reasonable margins (by industry standards).

[effie]

> The low end models are so cheap that Apple is definitely subsidizing them

Source? I find that quite unlikely, considering their brand has strong recognition and demand, and design+manufacturing costs are probably not wildly different from other laptop makers.

They could be trying to get more people on board via lower prices, but the prices I've seen, although accessible to many people, seem similar to other brands, and seems quite compatible with making a profit.

[ben_w]

They might be subsidising low-end models like that with the M-series, but as they were definitely overcharging for RAM way back when it was user-installable sticks… my gut feeling is RAM* is mostly a differential pricing strategy

* for laptops and desktops, storage pricing tiers also give me this feeling; however in the case of tablets and phones, the way they're used — for most people they are the primary computing device in their lives — less so.

[qwytw]

> They might be subsidising

Any (even the slimmest) evidence that this might be the case? Because it seems like an extremely far fetched claim... And year RAM/Storage upgrades seem like a clear example of market segmentation.

[ben_w]

When I chose "might be" rather than "are indeed", that was to say it's not impossible rather than to outright agree. Other companies do have loss-leaders, I cannot rule out the possibility that Apple also does exactly what was asserted in the comment I was replying to.

[qwytw]

I'm not sure even if that was the case it would fit the definition of a "loss-leader" unless we assume that Apple makes back the loss and more through the App Store and other services which seems extremely unlikely.

Otherwise who would selling laptops at a loss increase the sales of higher-end laptops, most people don't buy both.

> I cannot rule out the possibility

That seems like an extremely high-bar.

[ben_w]

> That seems like an extremely high-bar.

Ironically, it was an attempt to avoid an argument about that point :P

I think it's at least possible for this scenario, given they make more from services than from macs: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q1/FY24_Q1_Consol...

I'd still be on the surprised side if so, but it would be mild surprise rather than shock.