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.
iPhone 6 Said to Launch on Friday, September 19 in 32 GB and 64 GB Variants
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem is that until recently, everyone was used to 2 year contracts and subsidized pricing. As a result, phone companies jacked up the price of their phones, knowing that the cell company would cover the majority of the cost, with customers covering the remaining amount. This is one of the main reasons that the iPhone costs so much off contract. Apple set that price high, knowing that cell companies would pick up a majority of the tab.
Now that US providers are moving toward a model that the rest of the world shares, consumers aren't going to be all too happy.
That $200 (on contract) phone now costs $650 (what?). Sure they've "reduced" the price of the plans, but not really, you still end up paying full price for the phone over time.
The risk is now all on the consumer. What happens if your phone is lost/stolen/broken, you're out that $650 and now you need to pony up another $650. This is the way it is with anything you buy, I get it, but the safety net people are used to is gone.
I'm not saying that it should be one way or another, but people are used to thinking of phones as 2 year devices. If phones are going to be sold full price from now on, I hope that forces phone manufacturers to lower the prices of their device. $650 is a lot for someone to spend for such a small device.
Sure you can sell the thing after two years, but that's really an unknown because who knows what market conditions will be like in two years. You also have to take care of a device that you put in pockets, on tables, handle on a daily basis for two year. That's pretty hard to do to keep it flawless. Also, tech gets devalued all the time. If the iPhone 6 starts at 32 GB, the resale value of all the 5s devices with 16 GB take a hit.
I never understood though the argument that now "people can do what they want". You always could do what you wanted to when you are talking about phones at full price. The only thing is that you couldn't leave for 2 years if you got a subsidized phone. If I want the new one after a year, I could always sell the one I got and get the new one at full price. However, the savings I realized was in the cost of that initial subsidized phone, and then again 2 years later.
I believe that the majority of people now are stable in their cell phone companies. 10-15 years ago, every time I was off contract I was looking for the best deal with a new provider, but I haven't done that for over 8 years now. No one I know switches providers because the contract is up. Most people I know switch because they are consolidating their families to be in a shared plan of some sort, but once that happens they stick with what they've got. So in essence, you're in a "contract" but it doesn't matter, you're not going anywhere anyways, so getting a massive discount every two years on your handset is a big win.
I really do hope as companies move to full price devices all the time, the prices for these devices go down. If I had to spend $650 to get an iPhone, I probably wouldn't.
I find it hard to believe they won't tack on a third tier of storage. 128GB. Maybe they will make that an option on the larger version.
It still has to make sense. And making the smaller iPhone 6 inferior in any other aspects than screen size doesn't make sense as it would irritate and potentially put off prospective buyers, those wanting the smaller size but put off by it's technical limitations. Having two size options of the flagship iPhone makes sense but diluting the smaller option's value in relation to the bigger option doesn't.
And while an iPhone also functions as a camera it is a lot more than just that so the comparison to Nikon's nor Cannon's product lines doesn't make any sense either, no offence.
Last edited:
???
This is nonsense.
How do you think Rovio (or other developers) would monetize Angry Birds as a Flash web site? Why do you think they didn't? Why don't other developers? How do you explain that Flash didn't catch on with Android devices?
Come on, this stuff is easy.
I think Flash failed on mobile because no one liked it. Developers didn't like it: limited, only good for certain kinds of apps -- casual 2D games with conventional graphics. Users didn't like it: A constant source of annoying ads and browser hangs. OS and device companies didn't like it: cede control of their platform to deliver a least-common-denominator, low-quality experience to users.
Really only Adobe/Macromedia liked it... and, I guess, developers looking for easy ways to deliver apps with a low-quality user experience. Look, I've made a few $ in my time developing flash apps on the side and I appreciate everything it had to offer. But I'm not sorry to see it go. (Actually, I still use it in my iOS and Android development workflow: artists I work with really like it for certain kinds of frame-based animation and I can use a little custom command to export their animations in a convenient form. I also find it simple to use to mock up art for wirefames. It's a really nice tool where it fits the job. It's really weak as an app platform, however.)
Rovio always had the option of releasing Angry Birds as a Flash app and monitize it however they
First of all, 90 million times 'a couple of dollars' isn't a hard math problem. It would be 180 million.
Second, 180 million dollars among their profits is a drop in the bucket. Let's bring it back into terms of 'per phone': the cost to make the 16GB version is about $207. The 32GB model will be very close to that figure, probably around $210. But they make $442 for each 16GB phone they sell. So yeah, $180 million less out of $40 billion profit on iPhones is nothing.
Lastly, you're not considering the manufacturing costs of supplying a separate configuration. They'll save money by simplifying their manufacturing process.
True! Like when you're the type of user who loves photo/videography especially now iOS 8 offers Timelapse.
majority of people will always go for the cheaper version. they think about price first, storage second. if you make 16gb and 32gb the same price, guess which one people will buy. now, comparing a 64gb same size phone vs. 17" MacBook pro which is physically larger than its siblings is quite absurd.
Good for you.
In addition to photos and games, many of us like to use our iPhones as an iPod, too. Music is what takes up the majority of space on my iPhone.
Why is that whenever I see phone storage related topics there are always counter arguments saying you should use 'the cloud' or 'I don't use X so why should anyone else'?
There are people who want stuff or do stuff on the go and 'the cloud' isn't as good as local storage (if an option at all) e.g. signal reliability, data caps, slow speeds (both down and up), cost of subscriptions (if applicable), etc.
So what does everyone think about Apple's darkhorse for September, the iPhone 6C? It probably would have 5S components including the 4" screen and 16GB storage in the new 6 case style but with colors for $99 and an option to upgrade 32GB. It could really be successful this time if the case seems comparable to the other models and not "cheap". Especially with those people who want the smaller form factor, don't need much memory or are on a tight budget.
Then they would have models at $99, $199 and $299 that are all different sizes and features which justify the $100 upgrade. If they would drop the storage upgrades to $50 this would all start to make sense! (*crosses fingers*)
iPhone 6C: $99 16GB/$149 32GB. 4" screen, A7, 1GB RAM, color cases, NFC?.
iPhone 6: $199 32GB/$249 64GB. 4.7" screen, A8, 1GB RAM, camera lens updates, NFC.
iPhone 6X: $299 32GB/$349 64GB/$399 128GB. 5.5" screen, A8, 2GB RAM?, OIS, NFC.
Notice there aren't any overlaps in price between the models?
I think a 6C is very possible and would have the guts of the 5S, though probably no fingerprint home button.
Forget about NFC though. Bluetooth low energy -- already in all the recent phones -- pretty much completely supplants it (for a powered device like a phone). There is no reason for Apple to go backwards and adopt NFC in their devices.
Unfortunately, I think you're being too optimistic with your price points... The starting points look right to me, but I think Apple will continue to charge $100 for each step up in capacity.
Dear Apple, I need 128GB.
Seriously. With an option for 256. This is ****ING ridiculous with the size of videos and pics to make them such good quality. My iMessages alone are almost 20GB not to mention I shoot gigabytes of video per week.
LOL! Seriously? How does restricting storage capacity make my life harder? Okay, I'll try to explain it to you.
In the past, with my 160GB iPod Classic I could simply tag my music and sync my device. I didn't have to sit at my PC and ponder which songs I wanted to listen to that day or that week or that month. I could stroll around town comforted by the knowledge that every song I own is strolling around town with me and accessible for free (after the initial device investment).
Now, I have to decide which songs to take with me or subscribe to iTunes Match for a fee and continuously monitor my AT&T data usage in the off chance I exceed my limit and get charge an additional fee for more data. I spend vastly more time now managing my music then I ever did with the iPod Classic.
For me and several other iDevice owners I know we yearn for the days when we could "hog" our purchased data and access it without a fee and with convenience.
Additionally, smart playlists have no bearing whatsoever in my reasoning for wanting 128GB.
Last edited:
My spotify is taking up 8gb and I have all 64gb full... I have many apps and also take video/photos... It goes by faster than you think.
Yeah, I totally agree - if they actually do 32GB for at the existing $199 entry price point (US subed), then theres no way theyd break their existing $100-per-increment price model.
I dont even mind the $100 between 32 and 64GB, at least thats +32GB, the one that made me cringe was the 16>32GB where you only pick up an additional +16GB for $100.
Heck, in the Apple universe, if they did offer 128GB, at $100 more than 64GB*, it would be a _steal_
* in fact, they do this with the iPad!
Didn't you know that if THEY aren't using that much space certainly no one else needs to be.
I disagree. The ability to bypass Apple's App Store is the reason Flash is banned on iOS devices. Just because Steve Jobs said Flash is bad doesn't make it so. Steve Jobs was doing what all great marketers do, selling his product and minimizing the benefits of of tech that doesn't fit into his business model.
Flash is dead because Apple wanted a controllable and profitable App Store based upon it's approved coding language and development tools. If you want to develop an iOS app you must buy a developer license and a MAC because you can't publish it from a PC. How is this not a concerted effort to create a new revenue stream and maximize all profits from that stream?
You might wait for the official announcement before dropping to your knees and bowing at the Apple altar.
What do you know that the rest of us don't?
Johnny Ive out doing himself?
All they did was scale up an iPhone 5s.
What's hard about that?
It's probably already been posted several times - but that date is exactly 2 years since I got my iphone 5!
