Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Live Photos Take Up About 2x Space of Normal Images

You're telling me that it takes more to store a picture that's essentially video than it does a normal picture? No way! :rolleyes:


For those complaining about the smallest iPhone being 16GB, how has that non-stop complaining for the past couple years worked? Has Apple heard your cry on some random internet forum and changed their ways?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jsameds
oldmacs said:
Sigh...

No really no. I just don't see how people can justify Apple in this.

I couldn't give a flying damn about myself and the 6S, for me there is no 4 inch model so its next to useless. I'm talking about the broader scheme of things. All the people who will buy the 16GB and end up with a sub par product because Apple is not focused on customer experience anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm not justifying it - I'm saying deal with it because that is what is happening regardless of what we bicker about on here, and here are your options.

Simple as that really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H2SO4
Jsameds said:
I'm not justifying it - I'm saying deal with it because that is what is happening regardless of what we bicker about on here, and here are your options.

Simple as that really.
Click to expand...

Yep lets all go on like happy little sheep and pretend its fine.
 
Features like this is what makes me come back to Apple's products time after time. Not that the live photo is a ground breaking feature, but the way they handle their feature is well beyond all other competitors where they think through and come up with comprehensive solutions from the file format to the file size to SDK to ways to share with other devices in this example. Of course, there are other examples like, cough cough Photos cough, but, in general, they mostly provide full implementations.
 
oldmacs said:
Yep lets all go on like happy little sheep and pretend its fine.
Click to expand...

I am happy - I'm an ex-top tier guy as 64GB is my sweet spot, now I'm a middle tier guy since they bumped middle tier to 64GB so it's actually cheaper for me. 32GB isn't enough so I'd still be middle tier if they bumped the lower one.
 
oldmacs said:
You're missing the point. The specific users you're bringing up are also being ripped off. They shouldn't be paying the current price for a 16GB phone.

Of course there are plenty of basic users, its not hard to realise that. However a large number of people who purchase a 16GB phone do take photos, they do use apps and they do film. They are being significantly ripped off.
Click to expand...


I'm not missing the point at all. You are! The *value* in the phone isn't its storage!!!!! It's ALL the other things it can do for people!!

The phone is priced for ALL the things it does first, then, as an option you can upgrade the storage for more money. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!

If they don't need more than 16g of storage then they are not being ripped off.

I would bet there are far more buyers that just want to communicate and use 4-5 apps than buyers that are filling up their phones with music and photos.
 
rfahey79 said:
I heartedly believe that Apple stuck with the 16gb "entry level" in order to sell more 64gb phones.

"For only $100 more i can have 4x the storage..."
Click to expand...

They could have dropped the 16GB and also the $199 (subsidized) price point too. Would they then be selling more 64GB 6s phones or more 16GB 6 phones? Apple left the 16GB in the line up b/c there is demand for a $199 latest/greatest phone AND it also needed to preserve it's current margins ($199 64GB iPhone doesn't do that).

Ultimately its up to the consumer to decide how they will use the phone and if spending more $ for more storage is a benefit. Apple can't "force" consumers to buy up, just give them a reason to.
 
psylence2k said:
In the Harry Potter books, all of their illustrations are "live". Pictures in Newspapers, Books, portraits hanging on the wall, etc.

Even if the person in the picture isn't doing anything dramatic they'll still be blinking, smiling, waving, etc. They're all moving/animated pictures instead of still pictures.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for this. I didn't know either. I'm not a Harry Potter follower.
 
Last edited:
HenryDJP said:
If somebody is on a budget they certainly won't be buying an iPhone.
Click to expand...


That isn't really true. They may not buy the latest and largest phone every year. But just because you are on a budget doesn't mean you can't benefit from all the other things (especially communication tools) that an iPhone has.

These people may simply have longer buying cycles. iPhone 2 to 4s to 6s etc. Buying when the old phone no long works vs buying just because there is a new phone available.
 
Xtremjeepn said:
I'm not missing the point at all. You are! The *value* in the phone isn't its storage!!!!! It's ALL the other things it can do for people!!

The phone is priced for ALL the things it does first, then, as an option you can upgrade the storage for more money. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!

If they don't need more than 16g of storage then they are not being ripped off.

I would bet there are far more buyers that just want to communicate and use 4-5 apps than buyers that are filling up their phones with music and photos.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point yet again. I'm saying that the 16GB option SHOULD BE CHEAPER for those who want it, and the old 16G price tier should have a 32GB MODEL.

The 16GB people will not be ripped off, because A. they will pay the same price for a 32GB the 16GB phone and geta better resale later on if they want to sell the phone and B. because they will have the option to buy a 16GB phone CHEAPER than the current model.

You obviously haven't noticed how people use their phones. The iPhone is one of the most used cameras in the world. Apparently the average user takes 5 photos a day. Thats a lot of photos.
 
oldmacs said:
You've missed the point yet again. I'm saying that the 16GB option SHOULD BE CHEAPER for those who want it, and the old 16G price tier should have a 32GB MODEL.

The 16GB people will not be ripped off, because A. they will pay the same price for a 32GB the 16GB phone and geta better resale later on if they want to sell the phone and B. because they will have the option to buy a 16GB phone CHEAPER than the current model.

You obviously haven't noticed how people use their phones. The iPhone is one of the most used cameras in the world. Apparently the average user takes 5 photos a day. Thats a lot of photos.
Click to expand...


You really don't get it do you?

The base price isn't about storage, its about features.


You, like many others here are looking at the phone based on storage. Storage is not the primary reason people buy an iPhone. They buy it for what it can do. Then......if you're the user that needs more storage you can pay for it.


It would be ripping people off to make them pay for storage they don't need.


I'd bet that a very large percentage of iPhone owners do just fine with 16g (which as posted above will still store a ton of photos)




Let me put this in simple terms for you.



The primary reason I buy a hamburger at lunch is because I'm hungry and need food. I didn't get ripped off because it didn't come with the avocado? That costs and extra $1.

A basic iPhone is like buying a basic hamburger. It serves the primary purpose for most users. Want more? Pay for the add ons!
 
Jsameds said:
I am happy - I'm an ex-top tier guy as 64GB is my sweet spot, now I'm a middle tier guy since they bumped middle tier to 64GB so it's actually cheaper for me. 32GB isn't enough so I'd still be middle tier if they bumped the lower one.
Click to expand...
So you benefited from Apple's new capacity scheme, but 16 Gb customers saw no benefit, but they shouldn't complain? Every tier but the entry model saw a storage increase for the same price (32->64, 64->128). Why is it fair to bump the middle and top tier but they can't also bump the entry tier from 16 Gb to 32 Gb?
 
This has to be the biggest troll ever. Can't help but think how insane it is that Apple get a pass with this (unfortunately, we the consumer are to be blamed for it).

16GB iPhone:
  • 12-Megapixel and Live photos takes 2x more space.
  • 4K video recording size???
  • More Bloatware (No option to delete them)
  • 5GB iCloud as of 2015 and we are almost near 2016. Seriously?
32GB should be the entry level, if not, at least give us more cloud storage. and I am not even saying anything about 2GB ram...which seems too much to ask.

Let's be real now, Tim is all about the share holder and not what the consumer wants.

Edit: Made correction to iOS 9 file size.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Xtremjeepn said:
You really don't get it do you?

The base price isn't about storage, its about features.


You, like many others here are looking at the phone based on storage. Storage is not the primary reason people buy an iPhone. They buy it for what it can do. Then......if you're the user that needs more storage you can pay for it.


It would be ripping people off to make them pay for storage they don't need.


I'd bet that a very large percentage of iPhone owners do just fine with 16g (which as posted above will still store a ton of photos)
Click to expand...

But that's essentially saying that the 16GB is for people who won't use all the features that the phone is priced at for.

What I mean is, the 16GB includes the exact same 4k, 12mp, live photo capable camera as the other GB models. Yet defenders always claim that the 16GB model is for those who won't use those features. So why include those features in the 16GB model anyway? It's a bit ridiculous to include a bunch of super powerful, storage-demanding features; and then tell a customer to pay additional premiums if they want to use them effectively.

If someone is fine with 16GB and not having super power features, isn't last year's model more appropriate for them? They'll be saving money as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nia820
nia820 said:
Anybody still dumb enough to defend 16gb base storage?
Click to expand...

That's a bit uncalled for don't you think? While I have no interest in 16GB either I don't see it necessary to call my fellow forum members dumb for their opinion. Some people here are looking at it purely from a business standpoint, while the rest of this forum only looks at it from a personal standpoint.

Be real about it, if you ran a big company like Apple and you know your customers will buy regardless you will do as best you can to save money for the company by offering as little as necessary on your entry level. Because at the end of the day the name of the game is "Up-sell the Customer".
 
Judas1 said:
So you benefited from Apple's new capacity scheme, but 16 Gb customers saw no benefit, but they shouldn't complain? Every tier but the entry model saw a storage increase for the same price (32->64, 64->128). Why is it fair to bump the middle and top tier but they can't also bump the entry tier from 16 Gb to 32 Gb?
Click to expand...

They've not lost anything though, that's the point. They're complaining about not being given something for nothing. Life's not fair, that's just the way it is I'm afraid. First world problems, lol.

"I can't afford to record more than half an hour of 4K at a time on my new iPhone"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back