There have to be Mac users who are looking for workstation class laptops and have a legitimate need for more than 16GB RAM.
They may be a tiny population, but making presumptions that their complaints are invalid because you can't create a situation that taxes the Macbook isn't constructive.
People have been going on and on supporting USB-C only as future proofing the Macbook Pro (even though it's not even an ubiquitous standard now, and maybe not even for two years). Given how software is constantly requiring more and more memory, limiting RAM to 16GB is doing the absolute opposite of future proofing.
Totally agree with you, in fact I know of several Mac users who genuinely require a beast of a workstation. These folks (movie production industry) are willing to drop 4-5K on the most powerful machine possible and the 16GB limit is hindereding.
I shared an anecdote that came to mind, with no intention to dismiss your comment or downplay its significance.
There have to be Mac users who are looking for workstation class laptops and have a legitimate need for more than 16GB RAM.
They may be a tiny population, but making presumptions that their complaints are invalid because you can't create a situation that taxes the Macbook isn't constructive.
People have been going on and on supporting USB-C only as future proofing the Macbook Pro (even though it's not even an ubiquitous standard now, and maybe not even for two years). Given how software is constantly requiring more and more memory, limiting RAM to 16GB is doing the absolute opposite of future proofing.