"Apple told me MBP maxes out at 16GB RAM because LPDDR3 limit is 16GB/chip; Apple uses it because of performance/energy ratio."

https://twitter.com/DanFrakes/status/791754757404626944

So basically, it needed to be thin and light ... because, Apple ... which limits the size of the battery. And more RAM would consume more energy, requiring the device to potentially be thicker and heavier to accommodate a larger battery in order to meet their runtime expectations.

[1] http://www.memcon.com/pdfs/proceedings2013/track2/Designing_...

I don't think we're going to see 32 GB RAM in the ultrabook category until LPDDR4 is supported by Intel in their mobile-class processors.

Edit: AnandTech suggests that LPDDR3 is 25-30% more power efficient than DDR4. (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6326/additional-details-on-mic...)

EDIT: No 32GB MBP ever existed. My bad.

Which other laptop were you going to buy that supports more than 16 GB? How much does it cost? What's it size, weight, color depth and battery life?

As far as I know, the new Surface Book also only supports 16 GB of RAM. Or the new Razer Blade. The Razer Blade Pro can have 32GB of RAM, but it is twice as heavy and twice the volume of the 15" MBP.

http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/landingpage/promotions/weekly-s...

Dell Precision and HP EliteBook W series had more than 16GB well before that; several in the company where I worked had 20 and 24GB. Neither was obscure or exotic, both were aimed at the same professional market and were 'standard issue' for the top-tier in many large companies.

Apr 2011 ... the EliteBook 8540w can accommodate up to 32GB of memory

April 25, 2011 ... The Precision mobile workstations can handle up to 32GB of 1333MHz RAM and 16GB 1600MHz RAM

... were (and are) big-ass mobile workstations. MBPr were much lighter and thinner but still super-powerful - there was no competition in that weight/volume segment. Today, with Dell XPS, Razer, Surface and so on (even the Purism Librem is basically the same shape), we have plenty of alternatives in that segment, so there were two options really: move into the Air segment, or raise the bar for performance again. They chose the former, people complaining were expecting the latter.

It's a bit of a hulk being the weight of a 2012 MBP.

Sure, you're paying for "older" hardware, so I can understand being hesitant, but they still hold up fine and will last for a long time.

Note that I don't use virtual machines, games, or video editing software so the 16gb of RAM is more than enough.

I don't use games or video editing software, but I have 2 virtualbox machines running, one with Debian and one with Windows 10 for testing purposes, along with always on Docker containers. My 16GB of ram on my mid-2015 near maxed out 15" rMBP with a Dell 27" 4k display hooked up holds up very well.

  >models now are 16gb of ram only

It's not hard to rub up against 16GB in a standard developer workflow.

There's your problem.

(I use an MBP as the brain of a multi-camera video studio; I totally get why one would buy a Pro. But I'd pull 100% off of Macs before buying one.)

There is no serious Mac server, period.

Don't do the middlebrow thing. It never works.

http://imgur.com/a/Zj2wK

If I'm developing an iOS/Android frontend in osx with Xamarin Studio and an asp.net backend with Visual Studio, then 16gb just won't do.

Does that lifecycle mean a refresh every year for the MBP (or gasp, other Macs)??? That would have millions of people screaming with joy if that ever happened. Based on the last few years, it's quite clear that Apple does not believe in spec refreshes or in selling more of the Mac lineup. Apple seems to want to focus only on portables a little bit, followed by all-in-ones (iMac).

Sadly, it seems like Macs have become hobby items for Apple. Something to work on with spare time. I'm very frustrated that the Mac mini has not been updated for more than two years and that it doesn't have user replaceable RAM and HDD.