There's plenty of x86 laptops that handle 32GB ram. Of course would mean designing for the CPU and not the thickness of the laptop.

Apple's such a slave to the thickness that they put a smaller battery on the high end 13" than they do in the base model.

32GB ram laptops don't utilize LPDDR3, as in Low Power DDR3, which is used to reduce power consumption. If you're happy carrying a "portable" jet turbine, be my guest.

>> 32GB ram laptops don't utilize LPDDR3, as in Low Power DDR3, which is used to reduce power consumption. If you're happy carrying a "portable" jet turbine, be my guest.

I think you're missing the point. People want the option for 32GB even if it increases power consumption. Given how most people don't need more than 16GB, you can probably assume that those pining for 32GB are at least willing to make that compromise.

Wouldn't need reduced power consumption if Apple didn't decide everything needed to be paper thin.

Exactly.

I'm sticking to my 2015 MBPr until the next refresh. That refresh should be based on Intel Kaby Lake and the 200 chipset. This at least technically will allow Apple to offert 32 GByte memory versions.

...so why didn't Apple use them?

Because it would require the change of design as Phil supposedly stated. However attaching lightning proboscis and "revolutionising" keyboard by removing key(s) obviously is a piece of cake and a way to go.

Seriously. They do not care about RAM as Pro users clearly do and we feel betrayed. I wonder if and when will anti-touch display stubbornness vanish as it kind of did when they introduced stylus (sorry, Pencil).

This is LPDDR vs. DDR RAM types. There was no intel processor that supported LPDDR4 during the MBP design.

If you wanted to add 32G in a laptop, then DDR4 and reduced battery life are your only options.

A good example is the XPS 15, which trades battery life for DDR4.

So if the Macbook 2018 suddenly uses intel 80386, slow FP operations are also Intel's fault?

No. Apple decided between adding more, but more power hungry memories and battery life. 16 GByte memory was deemed ok for most of all users and battery life became more important.

Design within the limitations and handling market requirements in short.

No, they chose between performance and thinness. Battery life would have been fine with a battery the size they used before.

Please, read this before commenting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_DDR

XPS 15 uses DDR4, is even thinner if possible than the MBP and has less than 4 hours of battery.

IMO MBP should be performance focused, being battery life a secondary concern, while keeping MBA as an ultrabook.

In any event, it possibly cannot be Intel's fault if Apple makes the hardware decision.

No, it can't be. Intel provides their best products as given by their constraints, goals and customer demands (and Apple is a big customer). Apple releases the best products based on their goals, constraints and customer demands (as much as Apple now listens to them).

Each one to their own devices, so to speak.