4 ms·

I think it's unlikely that Apple is paying the spot price for memory. They almost certainly negotiate delivery/price contracts in advance. Maybe the contract fo

by chiph 7mo ago

I think it's unlikely that Apple is paying the spot price for memory. They almost certainly negotiate delivery/price contracts in advance. Maybe the contract for the chips used in the 512GB model will expire soon?

ajross 7mo ago
Even if so, everyone lives in the same market. If Apple has a contract for those chips at an artificially low price, it's to their advantage to sell them to someone else at market value instead of putting it in a Mac where they'd have to increase price (and take the PR hit) significantly to make the same profit.
- tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
  Not if their margin on the completed product is higher than the potential profit on the memory. My guess is they are doing this because they make more money selling two 256GB devices than they do on one 512GB device.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - don_neufeld 7mo ago
    Or they believe the long term value of two customers is bigger than one. It can be about more than the single sale.
- Faaak 7mo ago
  That doesn't take into account the profit generated by selling the mac in itself
  - thfuran 7mo ago
    Or the fact that if they sell all their RAM without putting it in devices, they won’t be able to sell devices, and some portion of their customer base will leave their ecosystem, possibly forever.
    - ajross 7mo ago
      The story is literally about them cancelling a product variant...
      - thfuran 7mo ago
        And you think this is the first sign that they’ve decided they’re going to spend the next few years being a RAM reseller before starting to sell consumer products again?
        ajross 7mo ago
        No, but "shipping less RAM" is clearly on that spectrum. The point wasn't about literal product strategy, it's that there's a limit to what actions are financially feasible and it's set by "what else could you do with that junk?"
    - zitterbewegung 7mo ago
      Yea, wwdc is happening soon and the M5 ultra is in production . The new pricing will be respective on the highest config (768 gb is rumored) though.
      - storus 7mo ago
        M5 Max has still only 128GB RAM at most; one would expect 192GB if there was any indication M5 Ultra would have 768GB RAM?
        zitterbewegung 7mo ago
        It is a rumor at this time and we are going from M3 to M5 on the Ultra not the M4 to the M5
        rz2k 7mo ago
        The maximum memory configuration for the M3 Max MBP was also128GB.
- muyuu 7mo ago
  it's Apple and they don't like to adjust prices to the market other companies would have just hiked the price of the 512GB model to reflect the lack of supply and to allow people who really need that model to pay for it dearly but that comes with some PR damage that Apple would rather not deal with
  - rootusrootus 7mo ago
    But they did raise the price of the 256GB model.
    - muyuu 7mo ago
      Yep, but it they had to double or triple it on short notice, they'd have just removed it from the store instead, and I imagine that the RAM is going into 256GB systems for more $$$ but still nothing really that alarming for the consumer.
Thorrez 7mo ago
>Apple buys and uses so much RAM across all its product lines that it’s in a better negotiating position than the likes of Framework or Raspberry Pi, but CEO Tim Cook acknowledged in the company’s last earnings call that memory pricing could begin to eat into Apple’s profit margins later this year.
- cyanydeez 7mo ago
  I would think the price gouging on memory tiers is why its in a better negotiating position. Having 200% markup means minor market conditions wont prevent them from payment.
- AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
  There's also the fact that they were charging $200 to add 8GB of RAM before the prices went up, when that much RAM was something like $70 at retail. The problem then is that when the supply gets more expensive and you were already charging the maximally-extractive price to customers, they can't eat much more of a price increase, so instead most of it has to come out of margins.
  - rafaelmn 7mo ago
    I was configuring my M5 MBP preorder and 48=>64 was 250 EUR so not sure if they cut prices or your numbers are outdated ?
    - Detrytus 7mo ago
      Prices in the US are usually much lower than in Europe. I just checked and 48->64 ram bump is still $200 I just did a 14" MBP with M5 Max, 128GB RAM, 4TB SSD, nano-texture display. Price difference is $5849 vs 7004 EUR ($8136).
      - rafaelmn 7mo ago
        I'd say half of that difference is that we have VAT included in price. But my point is that's a 16GB jump for 200$ not 8GB
phamilton 7mo ago
15 years ago I was an intern at Micron and learned they passed on a contract with Apple because Apple insisted on discounts and there wasn't a compelling reason to reduce profit at Micron. So yeah, Apple probably does pay less. But the market has enough demand that suppliers do say no.
- zozbot234 7mo ago
  This is actually relevant, because DRAM costs just as much now per Gb as it did 15 years ago (that's controlling for inflation; it's as much as it cost 20 years ago on a pure price basis).
mapt 7mo ago
It costs the same, we just mark it as an opportunity cost of unloading the memory on the spot market. If I buy contracts for 1 gold bar at $500, and the gold price runs to $1200, I can either continue to market my gold-containing product for the same profit margin, or I can unload all that gold for $1200/bar and make a profit of $700/bar. If my profit margin is high and it doesn't take many gold bars to make a thousand units, maybe discontinuation doesn't make any sense. But if my product is "solid gold statuary of Dear Leader", and the bars are most of my cost basis, I know what I'd do.
- groundzeros2015 7mo ago
  You’re thinking only finance. Their goal in buying the contract is to secure the good. The ability to maintain price will allow them to sell more units which is the number they want to show.
  - bombcar 7mo ago
    More importantly it'll probably get some people to switch, and potentially they have a customer for life now.
kube-system 7mo ago
Yes but the clock has been ticking, new products are being released, and at some point they will be renegotiating the next contract
- don_neufeld 7mo ago
  Yup, and it looks like it will be a tough negotiation: https://www.macrumors.com/2026/02/26/apple-agrees-100-price-hike-samsung-ram/ https://www.macrumors.com/2026/02/26/apple-agrees-100-price-...
boznz 7mo ago
Apple needs to seriously consider some sort of vertical integration on memory, it has proved it can do it with CPU's
- glenstein 7mo ago
  Amazing that it's gotten to that point but I think that's right. It's more intuitive that you would need vertical integration with your processing chips because of the degree of expert specialization necessary to produce them, especially in close coordination with a major product release. By comparison, ram seems much more a commodity, but the game has changed and it seems like there may be an important strategic interest in sourcing and supplying your own.

by chiph 7mo ago

ajross 7mo ago

Even if so, everyone lives in the same market. If Apple has a contract for those chips at an artificially low price, it's to their advantage to sell them to someone else at market value instead of putting it in a Mac where they'd have to increase price (and take the PR hit) significantly to make the same profit.

tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
Not if their margin on the completed product is higher than the potential profit on the memory. My guess is they are doing this because they make more money selling two 256GB devices than they do on one 512GB device.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- don_neufeld 7mo ago
  Or they believe the long term value of two customers is bigger than one. It can be about more than the single sale.
Faaak 7mo ago
That doesn't take into account the profit generated by selling the mac in itself
- thfuran 7mo ago
  Or the fact that if they sell all their RAM without putting it in devices, they won’t be able to sell devices, and some portion of their customer base will leave their ecosystem, possibly forever.
  - ajross 7mo ago
    The story is literally about them cancelling a product variant...
    - thfuran 7mo ago
      And you think this is the first sign that they’ve decided they’re going to spend the next few years being a RAM reseller before starting to sell consumer products again?
      - ajross 7mo ago
        No, but "shipping less RAM" is clearly on that spectrum. The point wasn't about literal product strategy, it's that there's a limit to what actions are financially feasible and it's set by "what else could you do with that junk?"
  - zitterbewegung 7mo ago
    Yea, wwdc is happening soon and the M5 ultra is in production . The new pricing will be respective on the highest config (768 gb is rumored) though.
    - storus 7mo ago
      M5 Max has still only 128GB RAM at most; one would expect 192GB if there was any indication M5 Ultra would have 768GB RAM?
      - zitterbewegung 7mo ago
        It is a rumor at this time and we are going from M3 to M5 on the Ultra not the M4 to the M5
      - rz2k 7mo ago
        The maximum memory configuration for the M3 Max MBP was also128GB.
muyuu 7mo ago
it's Apple and they don't like to adjust prices to the market other companies would have just hiked the price of the 512GB model to reflect the lack of supply and to allow people who really need that model to pay for it dearly but that comes with some PR damage that Apple would rather not deal with
- rootusrootus 7mo ago
  But they did raise the price of the 256GB model.
  - muyuu 7mo ago
    Yep, but it they had to double or triple it on short notice, they'd have just removed it from the store instead, and I imagine that the RAM is going into 256GB systems for more $$$ but still nothing really that alarming for the consumer.

Thorrez 7mo ago

>Apple buys and uses so much RAM across all its product lines that it’s in a better negotiating position than the likes of Framework or Raspberry Pi, but CEO Tim Cook acknowledged in the company’s last earnings call that memory pricing could begin to eat into Apple’s profit margins later this year.

cyanydeez 7mo ago
I would think the price gouging on memory tiers is why its in a better negotiating position. Having 200% markup means minor market conditions wont prevent them from payment.
AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
There's also the fact that they were charging $200 to add 8GB of RAM before the prices went up, when that much RAM was something like $70 at retail. The problem then is that when the supply gets more expensive and you were already charging the maximally-extractive price to customers, they can't eat much more of a price increase, so instead most of it has to come out of margins.
- rafaelmn 7mo ago
  I was configuring my M5 MBP preorder and 48=>64 was 250 EUR so not sure if they cut prices or your numbers are outdated ?
  - Detrytus 7mo ago
    Prices in the US are usually much lower than in Europe. I just checked and 48->64 ram bump is still $200 I just did a 14" MBP with M5 Max, 128GB RAM, 4TB SSD, nano-texture display. Price difference is $5849 vs 7004 EUR ($8136).
    - rafaelmn 7mo ago
      I'd say half of that difference is that we have VAT included in price. But my point is that's a 16GB jump for 200$ not 8GB

phamilton 7mo ago

15 years ago I was an intern at Micron and learned they passed on a contract with Apple because Apple insisted on discounts and there wasn't a compelling reason to reduce profit at Micron. So yeah, Apple probably does pay less. But the market has enough demand that suppliers do say no.

zozbot234 7mo ago
This is actually relevant, because DRAM costs just as much now per Gb as it did 15 years ago (that's controlling for inflation; it's as much as it cost 20 years ago on a pure price basis).

mapt 7mo ago

It costs the same, we just mark it as an opportunity cost of unloading the memory on the spot market. If I buy contracts for 1 gold bar at $500, and the gold price runs to $1200, I can either continue to market my gold-containing product for the same profit margin, or I can unload all that gold for $1200/bar and make a profit of $700/bar. If my profit margin is high and it doesn't take many gold bars to make a thousand units, maybe discontinuation doesn't make any sense. But if my product is "solid gold statuary of Dear Leader", and the bars are most of my cost basis, I know what I'd do.

groundzeros2015 7mo ago
You’re thinking only finance. Their goal in buying the contract is to secure the good. The ability to maintain price will allow them to sell more units which is the number they want to show.
- bombcar 7mo ago
  More importantly it'll probably get some people to switch, and potentially they have a customer for life now.

kube-system 7mo ago

Yes but the clock has been ticking, new products are being released, and at some point they will be renegotiating the next contract

don_neufeld 7mo ago
Yup, and it looks like it will be a tough negotiation: https://www.macrumors.com/2026/02/26/apple-agrees-100-price-hike-samsung-ram/ https://www.macrumors.com/2026/02/26/apple-agrees-100-price-...

boznz 7mo ago

Apple needs to seriously consider some sort of vertical integration on memory, it has proved it can do it with CPU's

glenstein 7mo ago
Amazing that it's gotten to that point but I think that's right. It's more intuitive that you would need vertical integration with your processing chips because of the degree of expert specialization necessary to produce them, especially in close coordination with a major product release. By comparison, ram seems much more a commodity, but the game has changed and it seems like there may be an important strategic interest in sourcing and supplying your own.