Ever since I found out about the ridiculous Apple RAM overcharges, I've become slightly obsessed. I'm not sure, for example, what you would really want 32 gigs of RAM in your MacBook Pro for, but Apple will do the job for $9,100 (that's the price of the RAM alone, the computer costs more) but you could buy the same thing over here for $2,749. That's a jaw-dropping price differential.
« It's The Network | Main | Robert Johnson: Friend of the Rich »
Memories...
14 Jan 2008 11:14 am
Comments (38)
I don't know why you are so surprised by this. You see it all the time, esp. when it comes to technology products. Look at prices on amazon compared to newegg. I often see things on amazon for double the price, and all of those "tech savvy" baby boomers are buying that crap on amazon thinking they are getting a steal.
A lot of consumers are paranoid about their goods and only want it serviced at "the dealer". Some price bump for getting service from the same people who manufactured your good is justified but to me that would be more like a 10% bump, not more than 300%. I don't fault Apple for charging these fees either. It's hard out there for a technology pimp. I fault the suckers for paying it. It's Consumer 101 to get a few different prices and options. If you're wealthy enough to drop crazy $$$ on RAM without shopping around then you deserve to pay it, Mr. & Mrs. Stupid McSuckerpants.
Except a Macbook Pro won't take more than 4 gigs of RAM. You're talking about a Mac Pro. And for that kind of machine, you may very well want 32 gigs of RAM. You want each of the 8 cores to have at least 4 gigs of RAM at its disposal.
Plus your first link no longer works. "Timed out".
Sorry to be a pedant, it's what I am...
Well, I for one don't find this surprising. Ipods are too expensive, and so are Iphones. In the same vein, Apple has found a niche for Macs with graphic design people, yuppies, and the type of people who want to make a "statement" about their "lifestyle" by buying well-designed Macs (and Ipods and Iphones). Those type of people are, to put it uncharitably, suckers and are probably willing and able to pay way too much for RAM.
What?!? You mean that Apple is a corporation, not a benevolent organization that seeks nothing but to spread truth and beauty around the world? Damn the media and Apple fans. I've been lied to all along.
All notebook makers do the same, just go price a Dell or Lenovo. Same with hard drives. People pay because they are afraid to install the memory themselves. Or for convenience.
It's just normal capitalism. They need to push the margins way down on the base package so they can advertise it. Then make it up on the (needed) upgrades. Well, except for Apple, where the base is already ridiculously overpriced. They just do it because they can, the market has shown that anything with an Apple logo can be charged an extra 60-120%.
Yes, it's true Freddie, Apple doesn't just spread awesomeness and flat hiearchies and cutting-edge somthing or other and hipness and light; it also uses its brand to sell stuff to people.
A lot of consumers are paranoid about their goods and only want it serviced at "the dealer".
And I'm one of 'em. After fifteen years of doing "high-end" fancy-pants graphic design-type stuff on Macintoshes, I've had way too many disasters occur from trying to save money on third-party hardware. I have learned that if one actually needs 32 GB of RAM to do a job, it's better to pay the premium for it and get the peace of mind that comes with Apple's warranties and support. I dare say that most of the professionals I know would agree.
What do you need 32 gigs of RAM for, anyway? In a 32-bit OS, I believe a single application can only utilize about 2 GB at a time.
Note to proofreader: Insert a "close italics" tag right after "needs" in the first paragraph.
I can't help but notice the persistent douchebaggery within Apple over the last 10 years. I believe that decision makers believe that the majority of their retail customers are technically ignorant. IBM had the same attitude back in the day (early to mid 80s) when it made every component of their computers proprietary and overpriced. Apple believes they have found a sweet spot in their customer demographic where the main characteristics are technical ignorance and residence in the upper half end of the economic spectrum. Their technology is groundbreaking in marketing and not in substance. I'm not impressed with their ipod or operating system, the core of their business, and I believe that they make up for it in douchebag ways that only people some modicum of technical competence can see and understand.
In a 32-bit OS, I believe a single application can only utilize about 2 GB at a time.
Leopard is 64-bit capable. The linked piece describes the kind of activities that need lots of RAM. Of course, people who want Mac Pros for those things will buy third-party anyway.
I get the feeling that the 'RAM gouging' reputation has a weird value to it by now: it would be almost harmful to stop doing it, because that would admit fault.
Gotta love commenters like qwerty.
Matt brings up 32 gigs ram for a mac pro (not the macbook),
an 8 core machine, and qwerty brings up ipod, iphone.
cost differences aside, qwerty and the like only know consumer Apple.
They dont know final cut pro , logic, pro tools, mathematica, compiling, programming, Shake, After effects,etc. etc.
As I read the comments and links here, I start to wonder how different third-party RAM is from official Apple product. Does all RAM come from a central RAM factory, and is identical except for brand name? Please advise.
.... it would be almost harmful to stop doing it, because that would admit fault.
You mean our foreign policy was designed in Cupertino? Who'd a thunk it?
"Unilateralism. It just works. (If you lean waaaay over like this, and kinda squint, like so...)'
You mean our foreign policy was designed in Cupertino
If that was true, it would at least look cool.
Just build your own machine and learn to use linux. So much cheaper.
Just kidding of course.
Bertie:
I don't deny that there is a certain segment of customers for whom Macs are genuinely worth the extra money. I maybe didn't make that clear, but that is why I mentioned graphic designers, for example, but you can't deny that for many people a Mac is an expression of their (upper-class)lifestyle and such people are willing and able to pay for the RAM. Or how do you explain all of this? Do you really think it should cost that much more? Do you think it has nothing to do with Apple's brand and at whom that brand is aimed?
Qwert,
OS X is the reason
And Apple has long overcharged on ram before they made ipods or iphones,back when the company was 'beleaguered' and on 'its last legs', it still charged too much for factory installed ram.
The ram for the 8 core mac pros do have special cooling fins on them, so even from and independant like crucial, its still a premium
price.
But then, someone who needs to get 4, 8 or 32 gigs of ram, isnt buying it for coolness or hype.
It seems pretty straightforward to me: Apple doesn't want to be in the business of installing RAM, but feels that it's a service it has to provide (lest customers complain). So they massively overcharge. Hasn't anyone ever quoted a ridiculously high hourly rate for a project they don't really want to do, then been surprised (and slightly dismayed) to have it accepted? Same thing.
QWERT: I used to feel the same way you do, but having used a Mac for two years I've changed my mind. It's surprisingly hard to find a properly-built notebook; I think Apple's portably computer hardware is generally a great deal (particularly the Macbook) given the build quality. Sure, Lenovo's cheaper, but otherwise I have a hard time coming up with something as solidly built that costs less. Plus OS X hits a really nice point between having *nix-style tools available while still being able to (almost) fully interact with the consumer-oriented internet.
Does all RAM come from a central RAM factory, and is identical except for brand name? Please advise.
Not quite, but more or less. There are different grades of RAM, and Apple's is generally in the upper-tier, but it's not custom-made: it's currently bought from Samsung.
Discussion here, which suggests that Apple might see BYO customisation as a pain in the ass, and would much rather you bought its standard model options like a good customer.
As pseud in nc notes, all memory really is not equal. In fact, it's not even `more or less' true. In fact, you aren't seeing simple price gouging here.
Apple buys top tier memory and marks it up a good bit. You can argue if this memory is really worth 2 or 3x as much or whatever, but it isn't like they are marking it up $7k (in this example). The stuff they spec is safer fro them from a customer service point of view (fewer failures means fewer c.s. calls) and the price is handed along to the consumer.
Memory module quality can make a big difference though (along with chipset, bus design, etc.). As anyone who has done serious number crunching can tell you. However, if you aren't looking to get the best you can out of memory-bound computations, plenty of options will be just fine. The cheapest alternatives tend to be more variably failure prone. This is a very different issue if you are buying one set for home, or 5,000 sets for business.
erm, in case there is any confusion, I'm not suggesting that Apple isn't ripping you off with the memory upgrades. It is. It just isn't ripping you off as much as you suggest in the post, much like comparing your macbook pro to the cheapest laptop you can find at Dell isn't really useful.
4GB modules are, at the moment, a little hard to come by from most reputable online dealers, but most discount online vendors are selling them for 500-600 bucks a piece... that OWC page is actually a pretty decent deal given that its a Mac-specific vendor and guarantees the stuff.
There's differences in memory grades, but nothing particularly remarkable. As long as you buy from a reputable vendor, test the memory when you get it (and return it if it shows faults) you're fine. That's the same thing the manufacturers do when they pull a few random samples to figure out how to grade the batch of RAM they've got.
I understand that Apple buys all of its RAM in advance, so they pay one price for the whole year. It's really a service for people who do high-end stuff, like use the new (and amazing) color correction app or Shake. You also have to be picky about RAM when you do high-end audio. There are also people with more money than they know what to do with, so I guess it's a service for them, too.
For an everyday computer, I wouldn't buy apple ram, but they don't expect everybody to. I mean, it takes 11.4 seconds to price ram.
As an Apple owner who resents being a "Mac person" (those ads are far too smug), the Apple markup bugs me. The problem is particularly bad when you have a machine that is not user-serviceable, such as the macmini. Then you're either stuck buying the RAM at highway robbery price from Apple, or you're voiding your warranty by opening the box.
Rules of buying memory:
1. Never buy from a computer vendor. Toshiba's website sells a 2GB DDR2 laptop memory card for $179, compared to $54 at Crucial.com
2. Never buy the 'name-brand' plastic-packed memory like Kingston, as is carried at stores like Best Buy. Toshiba's store has a 512MB Kensington product for $105, at Crucial equivalent memory costs $59.99.
Apple's hardly alone in this.
"They dont know final cut pro , logic, pro tools, mathematica, compiling, programming, Shake, After effects,etc. etc."
And your point regarding these is what? The fact that Apple routinely buys the company that is selling these products for multiple thousands of dollars, and bundles the next version for free with FC Pro, or sells it at a 10th of the previous price?
Rather destroys this claims of a monolithically evil Apple, doesn't it?
And, BTW, WTF is Mathematica doing in that list? Apple has nothing to do with Wolfram. Sure Mathematica costs a fortune on the Mac, but it costs a fortune on every platform.
Maynard wrote: "And your point regarding these is what?"
I believe he was listing a bunch of heavy-duty things professionals do with Macs, in response to QWERTY's consumer-centric comment about Apple being a lifestyle purchase.
MAynerd, I was responding to qwerty. just as Jon H wrote.
I was talking about the need for 32 gig ram on an 8 core mac pro for running apps such as mathematica.Hence the need for max ram.Sorry if i wasnt clearer.
Not the popular thinking that macs are only a lifestyle choice.
PS, your simplistic description of apple pro apps is misleading at best.
In a 32-bit OS, I believe a single application can only utilize about 2 GB at a time.
With a 32-bit OS, the OS itself can only address 2G; apps can address more.
In a 32-bit OS, I believe a single application can only utilize about 2 GB at a time.
With a 32-bit OS, the OS itself can only address 2G; apps can address more.
Sorry for the double post...
"You want each of the 8 cores to have at least 4 gigs of RAM at its disposal."
If you're processing oil drilling data, or doing the "Titanic" movie, or something.
I'm not a Mac specilist, but who the hell needs 32GB of RAM, no matter how many "cores" (as opposed to actual separate multiprocessors with a mesh connection between them) it has?
I found a Web site that tested the 8-core vs the 4-core Mac Pros. Turns out there's more to it than how much memory you can cram in:
"MEMORY BOTTLENECK?
Our friend, Lloyd Chambers, thinks there's a memory bus bottleneck for the 8-core, which he discussed back in March on his blog. He wrote, "Memory bandwidth is inadequate for 8-cores. It’s already a limiting factor with the current quad-core 3.0 GHz Mac Pro. Memory copy speed is at best 2.9GB/sec on the Mac Pro, in spite of Apple’s highly misleading claims of 21.3 GB/sec (“maximum processor bandwidth of up to 21.3 GB/s”—bandwidth is a bit more than double the memory copy speed). That’s a measly 700MB/sec per core on a quad-core machine, and only 350MB/sec per core on an octa-core machine. By comparison, a 6-drive hard disk RAID array can easily perform at over 400MB/sec!"
We did run the "test-compute-speed" with digLloydTools (DLT) on the 8-core. Its aggregate rate was 1204MB/sec (versus the 4-core's 601MB/s). That says that if the task is pure CPU, the 8-core is twice as fast as the 4-core. But if your task has to do a lot of interaction with memory, the advantage drops almost to nothing -- as we saw with Photoshop CS3 and Aperture.
TIGER IS "CHASING ITS TAIL"
"Yes, the memory bus is weak, but the biggest problem is that OS 10.4 (Tiger) does not know how to deal with so many cores. Perhaps 10.5 (Leopard) will. the problem is that the OS does not know that it should keep a thread on the SAME core instead of swapping it around to any one of the 8-cores. When a thread moves to a different core-group, the cache has to be reloaded on the new core. Since Intel quad-cores are two Core 2 Duos "duct-taped" together, the problem is worse than it would otherwise have been. When this thread/core shift happens repeatedly, it makes the cache ineffective and floods the memory bus with activity." (Though put forth by an anonymous BF reader, this analysis has been confirmed by Lloyd Chambers where he discussed "core swapping" on his latest blog entries regarding the 8-core Mac Pro.)"
Also, they said this:
"Meanwhile, we are intrigued by the tech note on Apple's site specifying that only certain memory kits and hard drive kits they sell are compatible with the 8-core Mac Pro. One memory maker informed us that Apple was using more than one source for the Advanced Memory Buffer (AMB) chip for the 4-core Mac Pro. Now they are using only one particular AMB which complies with stricter specifications.
We have tested OWC and TransIntl memory on our 8-core. And those companies have confirmed that their memory is fully compatible with the 8-core.
Don't let this bulletin scare you into paying "luxury" prices for Apple memory and hard drive upgrade kits.
WHERE TO BUY MEMORY FOR YOUR 8-CORE MAC PRO
We have tested the memory from the following companies in our 8-core Mac Pro and can recommend them to you....
We have tested both 2GB and 1GB modules from Other World Computing in our 8-core Mac Pro. They offer a "Trade In Your Factory Memory" REBATE program.
TransIntl.com designed their own heat sinks with 6 cooling fins on each side (versus 4 on the Apple factory modules) using a special aluminum alloy. We have tested their 1GB and 2GB and 4GB modules in our 8-core Mac Pro.
We have tested MaxUpgrades' memory in our 4-core. They assured us that they have tested their memory on their 8-core Mac Pro without any errors and crashes. They also sell their heat sinks separately as well as a memory cooling kit called 'max_flo.'"
"In a 32-bit OS, I believe a single application can only utilize about 2 GB at a time.
With a 32-bit OS, the OS itself can only address 2G; apps can address more."
The actual limit if 4GB-to utilize more than 4GB's of ram requires a 64 bit OS.
This explains what I said a lot more clearly, and saves me the need to type:
http://www.brianmadden.com/content/article/The-4GB-Windows-Memory-Limit-What-does-it-really-mean-
Actually the limit is about 3GB. Despite the 32-bit limit being 4GB, the last gig is not really usable under 32-bit Windows XP because the hardware devices are mapped to the last gig. Just because your video card has 256MB of RAM on it doesn't mean the CPU can get at it. To display on your monitor, that memory has to be mapped to real memory. There goes 256MB of your last gig.
Worse, the memory space is divided into 2GB chunks, 2 for the OS, 2 for user space, so no user process can use more than 2GB unless you use the /3GB switch which allows user processes to access up to 3GB.
The max any 32-bit machine user process can access under Windows is about 3.1GB.
Under 32-bit Linux, an individual process can address up to 4GB. But Linux itself, unless the kernel is compiled with a memory extension module, will only address 3GB, reserving the last 1GB for virtual process addresses.
With Intel's PAE extension, you get 36 address lines so you can address 64GB. But again, you take a performance hit, since the OS is basically remapping virtual process space into real, plus there are other issues with I/O so that a 32-bit machine with PAE and lots of memory still won't be as good as a 64-bit machine. Also, your applications have to be compiled to be PAE aware.
Bottom line: if you want more than 3GB of user usable memory, go with 64-bit OS kernels.
I worked for 13 years for Apple dealers. 95% of the time, third party RAM worked fine, but there have been certain models of Macs that were extremely finicky about their RAM. If you need 32GB of RAM, chances are you're charging your clients ridiculous amounts of money, and you can afford the premium. You'll make up the difference on one job.
Comments closed January 28, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Massive, uncompressed TIF files
Posted by Jack | January 14, 2008 11:26 AM