There were a number of exciting announcements from Apple at WWDC 2024, from macOS Sequoia to Apple Intelligence. However, a subtle addition to Xcode 16 — the development environment for Apple platforms, like iOS and macOS — is a feature called Predictive Code Completion. Unfortunately, if you bought into Apple’s claim that 8GB of unified memory was enough for base-model Apple silicon Macs, you won’t be able to use it. There’s a memory requirement for Predictive Code Completion in Xcode 16, and it’s the closest thing we’ll get from Apple to an admission that 8GB of memory isn’t really enough for a new Mac in 2024.

  • Jtee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    5 months ago

    And now all the fan boys and girls will go out and buy another MacBook. That’s planned obsolescence for ya

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Someone who is buying a MacBook with the minimum specs probably isn’t the same person that’s going to run out and buy another one to get one specific feature in Xcode. Not trying to defend Apple here, but if you were a developer who would care about this, you probably would have paid for the upgrade when you bought it in the first place (or couldn’t afford it then or now).

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Well no, not this specific scenario, because of course devs will generally buy machines with more RAM.

        But there are definitely people who will buy an 8GB Apple laptop, run into performance issues, then think “oh I must need to buy a new MacBook”.

        If Apple didn’t purposely manufacture ewaste-tier 8GB laptops, that would be minimised.

        • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I wouldn’t be so sure. I feel like many people would not buy another MacBook if it were to feel a lot slower after just a few years.

          This feels like short term gains vs. long term reputation.

    • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      And why they solder the RAM, or even worse make it part of the SoC.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        There are real world performance benefits to ram being as close as possible to the CPU, so it’s not entirely without merit. But that’s what CAMM modules are for.

        • akilou@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          But do those benefits outweigh doubling or tripling the amount of RAM by simply inserting another stick that you can buy for dozens of dollars?

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            That’s extremely dependent on the use case, but in my opinion, generally no. However CAMM has been released as an official JEDEC interface and does a good job at being a middle ground between repairability and speed.

            • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s an officially recognized spec, so Apple will ignore it as long as they can. Until they can find a way to make money from it or spin marketing as if it’s some miraculous new invention of theirs, for something that should just be how it’s done.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s highly dependent on the application.

            For instance, I could absolutely see having certain models with LPCAMM expandability as a great move for Apple, particularly in the pro segment, so they’re not capped by whatever they can cram into their monolithic SoCs. But for most consumer (that is, non-engineer/non-developer users) applications, I don’t see them making it expandable.

            Or more succinctly: they should absolutely put LPCAMM in the next generation of MBPs, in my opinion.

          • FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            And even if the out-of-the-box RAM is soldered to the machine, it should still be possible to add supplementary RAM that isn’t soldered for when the system demands it. Other computers have worked like this in the past with chip RAM but a socket to add more.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Apple’s SoC long predates CAMM.

          Dell first showed off CAMM in 2022, and it only became JEDEC standardised in December 2023.

          That said, if Dell can create a really good memory standard and get JEDEC to make it an industry standard, so can Apple. They just chose not to.

      • Balder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        In this particular case the RAM is part of the chip as an attempt to squeeze more performance. Nowadays, processors have become too fast but it’s useless if the rest of the components don’t catch up. The traditional memory architecture has become a bottleneck the same way HDDs were before the introduction of SSDs.

        You’ll see this same trend extend to Windows laptops as they shift to Snapdragon processors too.

        • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Well. The claim they made still holds true, despit how I dislike this design choice. It is faster, and more secure (though attacks on NAND chips are hard and require high skill levels that most attacker won’t posses).

          And add one more: it saves power when using LPDDR5 rather DDR5. To a laptop that battery life matters a lot, I agree that’s important. However, I have no idea how much standby or active time it gain by using LPDDR5.

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      And the apple haters will keep making this exact same comment on every post using their 3rd laptop in ten years while I’m still using my 2014 MacBook daily with no issues.

      Be more original.

      • Jtee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Nice attempt to justify planned obsolescence. To think apple hasn’t done this time and time again, you’d have to be a fool

        • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          👍

          -posted from my ten year old MacBook which shows no need for replacement

          • Jtee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            And is what, 3 or 4 operating systems behind due to it being obsolete

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        They will keep making the same comment as long as it keeps being true.

        • Typed from my 2009 ThinkPad

        Meanwhile your 2014 MacBook stopped receiving OS updates 3 years ago.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is pretty much it. People really just want to find reasons to hate Apple over the past 2 - 3 years. You’re right, though, your Mac can run easily for 10+ years. You’re good basically until the web browsers no longer support your OS version, which is more in the 12-15 year range.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      These were obsolete the minute they were made, though… So it’s not really planned obsolescence. I got one for free (MacBook Air), and it’s always been trash.

      • bamboo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I have an M2 MBA and it’s the best laptop I’ve ever owned or used, second to the M3 Max MBP I get to use for work. Silent, battery lasts all week, interface is fast and runs all my dev tools like a charm. Zero issues with the device.

  • Hux@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    This isn’t a big deal.

    If you’re developing in Xcode, you did not buy an 8GB Mac in the last 10-years.

    If you are just using your Mac for Facebook and email, I don’t think you know what RAM is.

    If you know what RAM is, and you bought an 8GB Mac in the last 10-years, then you are likely self-aware of your limited demands and/or made an informed compromise.

    • filister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If you know what RAM is, and you bought an 8GB Mac in the last 10-years, then you are likely self-aware of your limited demands and/or made an informed compromise.

      Or you simply refuse to pay $200+ to get a proper machine. Like seriously, 8GB Mac’s should have disappeared long ago, but nope, Apple stick to them with their planned obsolescence tactics on their hardware, and stubbornly refusing to admit that in 2023 releasing a MacBook with soldered 8Gb of RAM is wholy inadequate.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Funny: knowing that you only get one shot, I bought 32GB of RAM for my Mac Mini like 1.5 years ago. I figured that it gave me the best shot of keeping it usable past 5 years.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    imagine showing this post to someone in 1995

    shit has gotten too bloated these days. i mean even in my head 8GB still sounds like ‘a lot’ of RAM and 16GB feels extravagant

    • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I chalk it up to lazy rushed development. Good code is art.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s not true at all. The code doesn’t take much space. The content does. Your high quality high res photos, 4K HDR videos, lossless 96kHz audio, etc.

        • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          But there are lots of shortcuts now. Asset packs and coding environments that come bundled with all kinds of things you don’t need. People import packages that consume a lot of space to use one tiny piece of it.

          To be clear, I’m not talking about videos and images. You’d have these either way.

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            All these packages don’t take much memory. Also tree shaking is a thing. For example, one of the projects I currently work on has over 5 gigs of dependencies, but once I compile it for production, the whole code based is mere 3 megs and that’s including inlined styles and icons. The code itself is pretty much non-existent.

            On the other hand I have 100KB of text translations just for the English language alone. Because there’s shit loads of text. And over 100MB of images, which are part of the build. And then there’s a remote storage with gigabytes of documents.

            Even if I double the code base by copy pasting it will be a drop in a bucket.

    • Bjornir@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      I have a VPS that uses 1GB of RAM, it has 6-7 apps running in docker containers which isn’t the most ram efficient method of running apps.

      A light OS really helps, plus the most used app that uses a lot of RAM actually reduce their consumption if needed, but use more when memory is free, the web browser. On one computer I have chrome running with some hundreds of MB used, instead of the usual GBs because RAM is running out.

      So it appears that memory is full,but you can actually have a bit more memory available that is “hidden”

      • derpgon@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        Same here. When idle, the apps basically consume nothing. If they are just a webserver that calls to some PHP script, it basically takes no RAM at all when idle, and some RAM when actually used.

        Websites and phone apps are such an unoptimized pieces if garbage that they are the sole reason for high RAM requirements. Also lots of background bloatware.