Too dynamic for a photo.
Too short for a video.
Let's call them "phideos" !
Too short for a video.
Let's call them "phideos" !
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's Live Photos Take Up About 2x Space of Normal Images
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just don't get the big deal, this feature has been available for years on other phones.
So... this is the same thing as Living Images on a Nokia Lumia phone?
That came out last year? http://lumiaconversations.microsoft...hose-moving-moments-with-nokia-living-images/
If so, it's cool to see it on a different phone.
I've been using this for about a year on my Lumia 930, just a shame that no one else has copied or licensed it yet, good to see Apple do so as it's a nice feature that more people should make use of.
That came out last year? http://lumiaconversations.microsoft...hose-moving-moments-with-nokia-living-images/
If so, it's cool to see it on a different phone.
I've been using this for about a year on my Lumia 930, just a shame that no one else has copied or licensed it yet, good to see Apple do so as it's a nice feature that more people should make use of.
Now you don't have to endure Android to use this feature. That's a pretty big deal.
Explain this format? Or do u trust everything Phil says?
You can set up Dropbox/OneDrive to copy every photo you take to your Dropbox/OneDrive account so not really a big deal if you are low on storage space.
2x more is not as bad as I was expecting. For the good of everyone though, the iPhone lineup should be 64GB - 128GB - 256GB IMO. Flash memory is cheap, except 256GB is a bit more difficult to come across.
Apple did decrease the cost of iCloud storage though, which should be a good alternative to spending the extra $100 for 128GB.
Apple did decrease the cost of iCloud storage though, which should be a good alternative to spending the extra $100 for 128GB.
Yes, but so are Apple.
I disagree. Sort of. I think the truth is somewhere in between. I'm convinced (from all I've read about the company and the man) that Steve Jobs was absolutely driven by the desire to produce great products. 'Insanely great' were his words, and I think he believed them with absolute sincerity. When things went wrong (MobileMe, 'antennagate', etc), he took these things to heart. I think Jony Ive is similarly driven. That doesn't mean I agree with all their design decisions—I don't. But I think there was, and is, a sincere desire to produce great products, which is still very much at the core of Apple's culture.
However, there is always pressure from the shareholders and beancounters to make shetloads of cash, and that has to weigh on Tim Cook's mind. So here we have the evidence: a 16GB base option that, as others have observed, looks to be intentionally designed to push those who know better up to 64GB when 32GB would do. I agree with you though that this is frustrating. People notice these things, and it lowers our opinion of Apple as a company. It seems like Apple has lost a lot of 'love' in recent years through little things like this, not to mention the declining reliability of software. (I've been an Apple customer a long time, and I've never witnessed a period of more frustration and bugginess.)
Total guess, but we can assume they are using compression, and the normal method of what has changed from the last frame.
So a newsreader against a stationary background would take up far less space than say on a roller coaster, where every frame is totally different.
Just a guess but that would be logical.
Why do people refer to iCloud as the solution for lack of space on 16GB phone? It's not: iCloud just makes a copy of your files in the cloud. But they're still on the phone a well.
In the new Photos app you do have the option to Optimize Storage but that only goes so far. My iCloud Photo library has 15.000+ photos on it and I cannot enable iCloud Photos on my current 16GB iPhone and iPad because there's not enough room on them. What happens is that 80% of the thumbnails remain white squares and when clicking on them I get an error message stating the photo cannot be downloaded from iCloud. Also, my phone fills up until less than 300MB is available and then I get all sorts of other error messages.
It's just a horrible user experience: I pay for the devices, I pay for iCloud storage, but still nothing works as expected. Very disappointing. The only solution: spend more money and buy bigger iOS devices.
In the new Photos app you do have the option to Optimize Storage but that only goes so far. My iCloud Photo library has 15.000+ photos on it and I cannot enable iCloud Photos on my current 16GB iPhone and iPad because there's not enough room on them. What happens is that 80% of the thumbnails remain white squares and when clicking on them I get an error message stating the photo cannot be downloaded from iCloud. Also, my phone fills up until less than 300MB is available and then I get all sorts of other error messages.
It's just a horrible user experience: I pay for the devices, I pay for iCloud storage, but still nothing works as expected. Very disappointing. The only solution: spend more money and buy bigger iOS devices.
Noone is asking Apple to be a non-profit. They are welcome to sell a 32GB model with a decent profit for them. This 16GB-thing is exactly the same thing as the iPhone's awful battery life: totally unacceptable and proof that Apple isn't listening to their customers.
Because Phil told them it was. Just ask Kroo.
Apple could make more profit with a higher storage-capacity lineup. I would still pay for the $849 model if Apple had a 64GB - 128GB - 256GB lineup. I would gladly pay the same price for more storage, rather than going back to 64GB. With higher storage capacity, developers can create more demanding apps and charge a premium for it. Also, customers would need somewhere to store all their extra photos and 4K video.
16GB is bottlenecking iOS. If a developer wanted to release a 10GB game or a 6GB professional app, they'd be less inclined to since 16GB users wouldn't be able to use the app.
Yes, and the marketing team told them that the 16GB exists only to sell up the 64GB model.
Don't you worry about it. All Apple is about is making you download assets from internet and only have a shell on the device, if App slimming and the Apple TV is any indication. They apparently think you're living in a perfectworl with a constant internet connection and no data caps.
I totally agree with your statement, but in the last 6 years Apple sold more and more iPhones, the only thing that would change their mind has to be a significant drop in sales. I don't see this happening in a near future.
So 16gb, thinner and pinkier all the way
I would imagine the 16gb is the entry level not all gold can afford a 64 Gb I phone also companies are now giving there employees who req a phone a 16 gb I phone cos it cheaper if you are supplying3000 I phones a considerable saving is made . I would like the 32gb to be the basic phone but when do Apple ever listen to the consumer
There could be many reasons such as
Camera units is not capable of capturing full res images at a high enough rate
The memory might not be up to storing the data
The CPU might not be up to processing all the photos in real time (this could well be a most valid reason). It may well work but if there is a 2-3 second lag while it does it they will not support it as they will get so much abuse from people saying the new OS is laggy etc