I couldn't agree more and after 20 years of using the Mac as my platform of choice, I'll enjoy the pathetic display of common sense acrobatics from "fanboys" trying to justify why that's acceptable
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Screwing its Customers Re: 16 GB
- Thread starter sillywabbit
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I couldn't agree more and after 20 years of using the Mac as my platform of choice, I'll enjoy the pathetic display of common sense acrobatics from "fanboys" trying to justify why that's acceptable
sounds to me they make their products disposable instead of upgradable, makes sense why they come out with new models and designs so often
don't agree with it but they are not hiding it either
Apple Screwing its Customers Re: 16 GB
The problem is that these fanboys are consumers, yet they rather side and defend a business, which makes absolutely no sense.
As a consumer myself, I look out for MY interests, these "other" people who always comes to defend Apple with their lately anti-consumer actions against consumers like myself is strange. Consumers are usually always on the same side, but not when it comes to Apple. You would think these people work for Apple or something. (If anyone says Samsung is better than Apple, they are accused of being a troll or on Samsung's payroll.)
Even in the article, one Apple's biggest fanboy didn't like how Apple started their product lineup with 16 GB and jumped to 64 GB. Yet, people here, talk about people unable to afford a 64 GB. Oh, and Apple Fanboy John Gruber, from the article, couldn't afford to buy the 64 GB or higher model, that is why he is complaining. (Sarcasm)
Wow, all I can say is wow, is that what they were able to comprehend from that article?
Too many iSheep....
I couldn't agree more and after 20 years of using the Mac as my platform of choice, I'll enjoy the pathetic display of common sense acrobatics from "fanboys" trying to justify why that's acceptable
The problem is that these fanboys are consumers, yet they rather side and defend a business, which makes absolutely no sense.
As a consumer myself, I look out for MY interests, these "other" people who always comes to defend Apple with their lately anti-consumer actions against consumers like myself is strange. Consumers are usually always on the same side, but not when it comes to Apple. You would think these people work for Apple or something. (If anyone says Samsung is better than Apple, they are accused of being a troll or on Samsung's payroll.)
Even in the article, one Apple's biggest fanboy didn't like how Apple started their product lineup with 16 GB and jumped to 64 GB. Yet, people here, talk about people unable to afford a 64 GB. Oh, and Apple Fanboy John Gruber, from the article, couldn't afford to buy the 64 GB or higher model, that is why he is complaining. (Sarcasm)
Wow, all I can say is wow, is that what they were able to comprehend from that article?
Too many iSheep....
Last edited:
That's too true. What I don't understand is that the main outlay for an iPhone is covered with the cost of the 16Gb model anyway. If someone is that concerned with cost, they'd wait however long it took to get the additonal funds together instead of jumping on the 16Gb and crying about the other options.
To them, £539 for a phone is fine but they're damned if they're going to save up another £80 for 4 x the storage or another £160 for 8 x the storage and it's Apple's fault if they have to!
It's entirely different when it comes to Macs.
It's Apple who decided non-upgradable, mostly i5 systems for premium prices is acceptable, that soldered RAM is fine and that people buying a desktop actually care how thin it is.
In the G3 days, the entry level desktop was £999. By the time the Mac Pro came out in 2006, it was £1,499 for a BTO 2Ghz Xeon with 4 cores. Now it's the 2 form-before-function i5-based desktops or a 4-core/8-thread Xeon for £2,499 that's actually slower than the fastest BTO option of the 27" iMac.
nature of business
consumer's perspective: 'this sucks why won't apple set the entry iphone to 32gb so i can just pay the entry price.'
company's perspective: 'if we make the 32gb the entry phone, nobody will pay an extra $100 for our 64gb, we will lose money.'
investor's perspective: 'make me more money.'
consumer's perspective: 'this sucks why won't apple set the entry iphone to 32gb so i can just pay the entry price.'
company's perspective: 'if we make the 32gb the entry phone, nobody will pay an extra $100 for our 64gb, we will lose money.'
investor's perspective: 'make me more money.'
16 GB is the kind of thing that's for my mom and for businesses. If you're posting on this forum just pony up for the 64, and appreciate that last year for the same price you only got 32.
I've heard Gruber hit on this point during his podcast. I guess you can see his point when you consider Apple doubled the capacity for those buying the middle and highest storage tiers, but gave the 16GB buyers nothing extra.
Obviously Apple could easily afford to start everyone out on 32GB. The costs would not appear great in terms of buying 32GB instead of 16GB in the vast quantities Apple buys. But the costs are also not insignificant either when you weigh against the number of 16GB models Apple sells - the costs quickly start to look huge. Shareholders would definitely not like it because it would reduce margin, and it would also reduce the number of people who buy the middle storage tier.
While 16GB isn't enough for some people, 32GB would be sufficient for a lot more people. So aside from eating the cost of the bigger storage capacity, Apple would also be losing out on those who felt it necessary to buy the next tier up while 16GB is still around. You'd have a lot more people buying the base models. And this just adds to the huge cost of doubling the storage in the base model.
So overall I think Apple has struck a fair balance. They are giving their most profitable customers a much bigger bang for their buck, while continuing to offer the 16GB models to those who can live with them and want the cheapest possible way into an incredible experience. It's a tricky balancing act for sure though and I can see Gruber's point of view on this.
Obviously Apple could easily afford to start everyone out on 32GB. The costs would not appear great in terms of buying 32GB instead of 16GB in the vast quantities Apple buys. But the costs are also not insignificant either when you weigh against the number of 16GB models Apple sells - the costs quickly start to look huge. Shareholders would definitely not like it because it would reduce margin, and it would also reduce the number of people who buy the middle storage tier.
While 16GB isn't enough for some people, 32GB would be sufficient for a lot more people. So aside from eating the cost of the bigger storage capacity, Apple would also be losing out on those who felt it necessary to buy the next tier up while 16GB is still around. You'd have a lot more people buying the base models. And this just adds to the huge cost of doubling the storage in the base model.
So overall I think Apple has struck a fair balance. They are giving their most profitable customers a much bigger bang for their buck, while continuing to offer the 16GB models to those who can live with them and want the cheapest possible way into an incredible experience. It's a tricky balancing act for sure though and I can see Gruber's point of view on this.
Got to agree with Gruber here.
Yes, I more than understand the folks here who say that it's your choice and if you don't want 16 GB, spend the extra money and go for 64. Yes, I agree with you. I know how little 16 GB is today given the growing size of photos, videos, apps, operating systems, and so on.
But for the average customer? They don't know 16 GB isn't enough. We can't expect them either - it should "just work". And it's quite unfortunate that Apple hasn't stepped up to 32 GB base. The iPhone 6, 6 Plus, and iPad Air 2 are all premium products with prices to show, and even customers choosing base option shouldn't need to worry.
Yes, I more than understand the folks here who say that it's your choice and if you don't want 16 GB, spend the extra money and go for 64. Yes, I agree with you. I know how little 16 GB is today given the growing size of photos, videos, apps, operating systems, and so on.
But for the average customer? They don't know 16 GB isn't enough. We can't expect them either - it should "just work". And it's quite unfortunate that Apple hasn't stepped up to 32 GB base. The iPhone 6, 6 Plus, and iPad Air 2 are all premium products with prices to show, and even customers choosing base option shouldn't need to worry.
That would be an option if they were able to keep up with demand. I think the point here is 32 gig shouldn't be a $100 upgrade.
This is an intentional ploy to sell egregiously over priced additional memory. And that's why they refuse to give us a memory card slot.
----------
That would be an option if they were able to keep up with demand. I think the point here is 32 gig shouldn't be a $100 upgrade.
This is an intentional ploy to sell egregiously over priced additional memory. And that's why they refuse to give us a memory card slot. Selling a $750 phone with 16 gigs of memory and no card slot is a joke in 2014
Yes, they are disposable devices now. Which makes any claim by apple about being green, 100% hypocritical.
You nailed it in the first sentence. Its just a phone. We hand them out in work to the part timers like candy (although still company property). And especially gold since they are the only 6+'s we can find in stock, or at least our verizon rep claims to be able to get.
Like you touched on its subjective. I just don't find a phone sold at a similar price that offers very little over the competition by the millions to even children to be a "premium product". But thats just my opinion.
It's not just a phone. It's a miniature computer that you can hold in your hand and also make calls with. If that's not premium, then I don't know what is. This is basically the kind of tech sci-fi shows and books teased us with. And it's here now, it looks fantastic, it works pretty great for any of the top tier phones, and it's not a premium product? What more does it need to do, make you toast in the morning? Build pyramids in ancient Egypt? Spin straw into gold?
Really it's an intentional ploy to make as much money as they can in the current market.
People on MR (and elsewhere) have been bitching about the memory / cost matrix for as long as iPhones have been produced. Yet every new iphone nets even higher sales figures. Countless threads by people complaining... who then go buy the next device as soon as it's out.
Until that changes, it's unlikely Apple will change the setup.
Apple did a good thing, they reduced the price of the higher storage phones. That's how business works. You pay less for buying larger quantities. It makes no sense for Apple to charge less for lower capacities and more for higher capacities. Where is this ever done in business. Those complaining about 16gb are only doing so because they want to pay less, for 32gb and don't want to pay for the 64gb even with the price drop. Most of use that need larger storage were happy because we got 64gb for the price of 32gb. If $100 extra for 4x more storage is too much, then that's on you.
Competing companies are making the push for 32gb standard, note 4 being an example.
Also keep in mind Apple has already done it twice going from 4 as the standard to 8 as the standard to 16 as the standard.
Maybe you forgot about that?
Will 32gb be the standard one day, sure. Did Apple screw any customers, BIG NO. Most customers were happy to get a discount on the 64gb and 128gb models. What's not to like about that. 16gb is enough for those that want 16gb, there is no disputing that. End of.
True, the Note 4 is 32GB standard.
However, the Galaxy S5 and the Moto X are just two example that are 16GB like the iPhone.
So what does that have to do with 16gb being useable, which this thread claims is not?