Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Not necessarily, depends on addressing and firmware support, which they control.

E.G. 768 isn't an uncommon memory amount in PCs of the past. 512+256.

I think some iPhone/iPads have used dual chips? Apple could very easily use a 16GB chip + a 8GB chip if they thought it made sense for customers and to save dough.

Do i think this will happen? No way.

They could, but there isn't enough room for 2. They've always used 1 in the iPhone and 2 in iPads/iPod touches.

On a separate note I just wish their pricing was more consistent in the UK. In the USA 32-64gb iPads are $100 more. In the UK 32-64iPads are £80. That's fine.

In the USA 32-64gb iPhones unlocked are $100 more. In the UK £100 more. Why do we have to pay £100 vs £80 for the iPads, obviously I thought that it was because the phone used 1 64gb chip vs ipads 2 32gb. But then that doesn't explain why in the USA the set up is the same on both. Le sigh!
 
Thoughts?

----------

They could, but there isn't enough room for 2. They've always used 1 in the iPhone and 2 in iPads/iPod touches.

On a separate note I just wish their pricing was more consistent in the UK. In the USA 32-64gb iPads are $100 more. In the UK 32-64iPads are £80. That's fine.

In the USA 32-64gb iPhones unlocked are $100 more. In the UK £100 more. Why do we have to pay £100 vs £80 for the iPads, obviously I thought that it was because the phone used 1 64gb chip vs ipads 2 32gb. But then that doesn't explain why in the USA the set up is the same on both. Le sigh!

Ha! Britain.
 
If they kept at 16/32/64, what would they do with the 4S and 4 as the entry level models? Is 8GB on a 4S enough with all the additional features it will have (what memory space/cache does Siri and Maps require?). I can see the new 32 being the same price as the current 16, with the 4S still brought down in price at 16 and then the 4 bringing up the rear at 8.
 
If they kept at 16/32/64, what would they do with the 4S and 4 as the entry level models? Is 8GB on a 4S enough with all the additional features it will have (what memory space/cache does Siri and Maps require?). I can see the new 32 being the same price as the current 16, with the 4S still brought down in price at 16 and then the 4 bringing up the rear at 8.

8gb 4S. Why give it 16gb and cause more people to shy away from the new shiny iPhone!

Even if 32gb became the new standard they may keep the bottom ones at 8, look at the iPod touches atm. 8gb then 32gb!
 
If they kept at 16/32/64, what would they do with the 4S and 4 as the entry level models? Is 8GB on a 4S enough with all the additional features it will have (what memory space/cache does Siri and Maps require?). I can see the new 32 being the same price as the current 16, with the 4S still brought down in price at 16 and then the 4 bringing up the rear at 8.

8gb is enough for some and not others. A lot of people use the iphone as a phone only and don't care about extra space.
 
They won't go hand in hand forever. Eventually, $199 will get you 32. The question is when (which is the point of this thread.)

No, the point of this thread was the iPhone 5, which if you were reading my post that you quoted, you would have have noted my reference to. No one knows what Apple is going to do memory wise in the future therefore it is too early to speculate on that. Since there will be a 16GB iPhone 5 for $199 again this year, my original post stands. Thank you for reading it, though. ;)
 
No one knows what Apple is going to do memory wise in the future therefore it is too early to speculate on that. Since there will be a 16GB iPhone 5 for $199 again this year, my original post stands.

But...you just speculated. No one knows that there will be 16 GB for 199 this year. I think your speculation is correct, especially given 9to5mac is reporting three sizes again (so no 32/64, it would have to be 32/64/128, which is really unlikely given the time it took Apple to implement 64 GB. But it's still speculation.
 
Would be nice, but I really don't think so. 16GB is still serviceable for many, many people. Maybe they'll lower the price for additional storage?

Actually if you use your iPhone as a camera, and shot a lot of pictures and record some videos, you run out of space pretty quick. Yes, Photostream and all that, works fine for many in the US, but if you are traveling you need more space. I do. I hope 32 is the new low, so they release 3 sizes 32, 64 and 128.
 
Actually if you use your iPhone as a camera, and shot a lot of pictures and record some videos, you run out of space pretty quick. Yes, Photostream and all that, works fine for many in the US, but if you are traveling you need more space. I do. I hope 32 is the new low, so they release 3 sizes 32, 64 and 128.

I'm not arguing that photos and videos can't consume a considerable amount of space. What I am saying is that many people won't feel constricted with 16GB of storage on their phone, and for those who do there is the option to pay more to double or quadruple it.
 
You guys seem to be forgetting that Apple is going to great lengths to decrease the amount of storage one needs on an iPhone. If Apple had their druthers everyone would be using iTunes Match (negating the need for storage of music) and iCloud for the rest of their crap (like photo stream for pics). Although a 128 gb iPhone would increase their profits, it would go against what they're trying to do with iCloud.
 
I think they will stay with 64gb as their top model. My friend works at a Rogers retail store. The 16 and 32 gb models are by far the most popular. They can't give away their 64gb models.

Consumers are scared of non-subsidized smartphone prices in general, so it's not terribly surprising that a $400 phone on contract isn't as appealing as $159 or $269 (or however we have them priced in canada).

I wonder actually if they'll stick with 3 tiers again for capacity options. $399 does seem like a tough sell compared to all the different $99/$199 smartphones on a carrier's shelf.

----------

You guys seem to be forgetting that Apple is going to great lengths to decrease the amount of storage one needs on an iPhone. If Apple had their druthers everyone would be using iTunes Match (negating the need for storage of music) and iCloud for the rest of their crap (like photo stream for pics). Although a 128 gb iPhone would increase their profits, it would go against what they're trying to do with iCloud.

Does iCloud really do this though?

For iTunes match you still use space when listening/downloading your music, it's just a different way to access it.

With 8 mp photos and 1080p video storage can be eaten up quickly and photostream generally doesn't help you.

Apps as well can use a considerable amount of storage and they seem to be growing in size generally too.
 
iTunes in the Cloud allows it to stream your music, but it is slow, and lags, and eats your data quota if you are not using Wi-Fi. Therefore, it helps but not for every moment when you simply want to listen to your music while not connected to the network.
 
The standard for me is the highest GB. If they have 120gb I'm getting it. If they dont, I'll stick to whatever phone I have for a couple months until I can jailbreak the 5.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.