'iPhone 6s' Logic Board Suggests 16GB Base Model and Updated NFC Hardware
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Michael Goff
Suspended
I must have a magic version where I can have more than one app without it refreshing.
SeattleMoose
macrumors 68000
Because they have an agenda....the cloud. More personal storage = bad, More Cloud storage = good.
Having to pay for more reasonable storage is just "gentle herding of the sheep". If you make it painful, most people will just give in.
The cloud is just your data on someone else's drive. Phone companies love the increased bandwidth and Apple wants you to be wedded to their services. Content ownership...is already slated for extinction.
Abazigal
Contributor
I agree, which is why my advice to Apple is that they should just offer the 64gb and 128gb models and raise the starting price to $299. This way, nobody can accuse Apple of not including sufficient storage on their phones. If anything, the iPhones should become more expensive.
Cost of ram and storage falls, but I don't see the link unless Apple offers exactly the same product year after all. You mean touch-Id didn't cost any money to implement? Or the better camera, or the faster processor, or a myriad other features each new generation iPhone comes with?
In a sense, they help to cancel each other out. I don't think Phil was exactly wrong when he said that saving on storage meant more money to spare on other parts. Yes, it's not the answer people want to hear, but I don't think Phil was trying to be politically correct here. He was asked a direct question by John Gruber, and I appreciate that he at least gave a direct, honest answer.
Apple is a profit-maximising company like anyone else. To me, the relationship is a straightforward one. They put out a product, and I will buy it if I feel that it is worth my money. And if I don't think it is worth it (like the Apple Watch, which I find too overpriced for what it does), then I simply won't buy it. Just like how I think it is ridiculous that Apple charges $10000 for their Apple Watch edition, but you don't see me wailing on the forums about this, because I believe that the people who do buy them find value in it somehow, and it's not my place to question other people on how they should spend their money.
And if once in a while, Apple does something nice like bundle free iWork's with their hardware (which came after I had paid for most of the apps already, but whatever), I treat it as a welcome gesture, but not once have I ever felt that I was entitled to free stuff from Apple (nor do I go knocking on Apple's door and insisting that they reimburse me for the apps I have already purchased).
Retired Cat
macrumors 65816
I've had my iPhone 5 16GB for over 2 years and I still have about 5 gigs free space. My usage profile is pretty light though: about 25 apps and maybe 2GB of media.
If iOS 9 and "app thinning" reduce usage, 16GB may be ok for basic users like myself. I don't take many photos or videos. My big concern with 16GB was the ballooning size of iOS and Apps, and if Apple can fix this problem I will be less worried about only 16GB in the base model.
I think 32GB should be the base storage for a flagship phone in 2015, but I will not sweat this. I think many people see a mismatch between the paltry 16GB that has been around for a few years, and the big improvement in other aspects of the iPhone.
If iOS 9 and "app thinning" reduce usage, 16GB may be ok for basic users like myself. I don't take many photos or videos. My big concern with 16GB was the ballooning size of iOS and Apps, and if Apple can fix this problem I will be less worried about only 16GB in the base model.
I think 32GB should be the base storage for a flagship phone in 2015, but I will not sweat this. I think many people see a mismatch between the paltry 16GB that has been around for a few years, and the big improvement in other aspects of the iPhone.
sunking101
macrumors 604
My iPhone 5 didn't refresh unduly but my 6+ does to a ridiculous degree. I would expect the two generations newer iPhone to be at least as good in every respect, plus a few incremental improvements.
Analog Kid
macrumors G3
Let's say you're right, and think about what that means:
Apple made $18B in 1Q15, selling 74.6M iPhones which accounted for 69% of their revenue.
Let's assume that iPhone also accounted for 69% of their profits. That's probably not quite right, but it's probably close unless they're losing a ton of money in some other business which is both un-Apple-like and runs counter to the exercise here of just agreeing with what the forums thinks is right.
That means that about $12.42B in profit is attributable to iPhone, or about $167 per phone across all devices and markets.
Let's assume people here are right and all of the other devices are just a ruse to get people to buy the 64GB device, meaning that the 64GB device accounts for the vast bulk of sales.
That means the 64GB device must be closest to the target margin of $167 if the entire line is going to net out to $167 on average.
Which means the 16GB device, by your accounting, costs Apple $2 less to build and yet they are making $98 dollars less by selling it. They're cutting their margins by 60% on that device which sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. That margin reduction is certainly critical to penetrate markets other than the relatively wealthy, English speaking ones that are complaining here.
According to iSuppli, the 128GB NAND costs about $47 more than the 16GB NAND, or about $45 more than the 64GB by your estimation. Their margins on that device are then only 33% higher.
If they lower the price of the 16GB, or raise the cost by making it 32GB, they'd have to raise the price of the 64GB to compensate.
If you think Apple should just reduce their profits to make you happier, then you're confusing a company and a charity. The whole point of a free market is to best distribute resources through profit maximization-- Apple's whole way of knowing they have the best product at the best price is to maximize their profits. Price it too high and less people buy causing profits fall, price it too low and you undervalue your product causing profits to fall. It's hard to say that Apple has truly maximized their profits, but it looks to me like they're doing pretty well:
Looking at that chart, which company do you think is most likely to survive?
sunking101
macrumors 604
Let's say you're right, and think about what that means:
Apple made $18B in 1Q15, selling 74.6M iPhones which accounted for 69% of their revenue.
Let's assume that iPhone also accounted for 69% of their profits. That's probably not quite right, but it's probably close unless they're losing a ton of money in some other business which is both un-Apple-like and runs counter to the exercise here of just agreeing with what the forums thinks is right.
That means that about $12.42B in profit is attributable to iPhone, or about $167 per phone across all devices and markets.
Let's assume people here are right and all of the other devices are just a ruse to get people to buy the 64GB device, meaning that the 64GB device accounts for the vast bulk of sales.
That means the 64GB device must be closest to the target margin of $167 if the entire line is going to net out to $167 on average.
Which means the 16GB device, by your accounting, costs Apple $2 less to build and yet they are making $98 dollars less by selling it. They're cutting their margins by 60% on that device which sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. That margin reduction is certainly critical to penetrate markets other than the relatively wealthy, English speaking ones that are complaining here.
According to iSuppli, the 128GB NAND costs about $47 more than the 16GB NAND, or about $45 more than the 64GB by your estimation. Their margins on that device are then only 33% higher.
If they lower the price of the 16GB, or raise the cost by making it 32GB, they'd have to raise the price of the 64GB to compensate.
If you think Apple should just reduce their profits to make you happier, then you're confusing a company and a charity. The whole point of a free market is to best distribute resources through profit maximization-- Apple's whole way of knowing they have the best product at the best price is to maximize their profits. Price it too high and less people buy causing profits fall, price it too low and you undervalue your product causing profits to fall. It's hard to say that Apple has truly maximized their profits, but it looks to me like they're doing pretty well:
Looking at that chart, which company do you think is most likely to survive?
That makes massive sense to all the beancounters and shareholders out there but the bottom line is that Apple class the iPhone as a class-leading device. They also price it as such. Therefore, they have to provide hardware that matches their claims and retail price. 16GB of storage and 1GB of RAM are frankly not premium phone hardware specs so if profit needs to take a hit in order to keep up with the pack then that's what needs to be done. I'm sure every company in the world would love to charge top dollar for yesteryear specs but strangely only Apple can get away with it. For the time being. Surely at some point people are going to cotton on that they're quite frankly being ripped off and that better products are available for less money.
Carlanga
macrumors 604
lol cheaper sure sure… see manufacture cost vs selling cost vs 32 and 64gb storage THEN come back to me to realize how hard they are f the public to earn an extra $100.
Carlanga
macrumors 604
just looking at that chart it will prob be samsung, people don't stay fooled in this day and age. 2015 and still no bump in storage is ridiculous even for bean counters that want to make an easy extra $100. Nowadays you can buy an android tablet for that difference that can actually run pretty good. Hell you can "pay" for prime and add $100 and you get the amz phone. You have to spend money on retention as well, just like they did w the bigger screens, I can see a big backlash if they do 16gb for the new iphones.Let's say you're right, and think about what that means:
Apple made $18B in 1Q15, selling 74.6M iPhones which accounted for 69% of their revenue.
Let's assume that iPhone also accounted for 69% of their profits. That's probably not quite right, but it's probably close unless they're losing a ton of money in some other business which is both un-Apple-like and runs counter to the exercise here of just agreeing with what the forums thinks is right.
That means that about $12.42B in profit is attributable to iPhone, or about $167 per phone across all devices and markets.
Let's assume people here are right and all of the other devices are just a ruse to get people to buy the 64GB device, meaning that the 64GB device accounts for the vast bulk of sales.
That means the 64GB device must be closest to the target margin of $167 if the entire line is going to net out to $167 on average.
Which means the 16GB device, by your accounting, costs Apple $2 less to build and yet they are making $98 dollars less by selling it. They're cutting their margins by 60% on that device which sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. That margin reduction is certainly critical to penetrate markets other than the relatively wealthy, English speaking ones that are complaining here.
According to iSuppli, the 128GB NAND costs about $47 more than the 16GB NAND, or about $45 more than the 64GB by your estimation. Their margins on that device are then only 33% higher.
If they lower the price of the 16GB, or raise the cost by making it 32GB, they'd have to raise the price of the 64GB to compensate.
If you think Apple should just reduce their profits to make you happier, then you're confusing a company and a charity. The whole point of a free market is to best distribute resources through profit maximization-- Apple's whole way of knowing they have the best product at the best price is to maximize their profits. Price it too high and less people buy causing profits fall, price it too low and you undervalue your product causing profits to fall. It's hard to say that Apple has truly maximized their profits, but it looks to me like they're doing pretty well:
Looking at that chart, which company do you think is most likely to survive?
Wait until you can't multitask with iOS 9 like you will be able to with the 6S. It won't be so proper then.
I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. 16GB is outdated and antiquated. All other flagships over $500 in 2015 are 32GB minimum. If Apple did not position this phone as a flagship I would understand but that is not the case. It's a pure and evil money grab.
And I understand that people don't need 32GB but at the same time do those people need a $650 phone?
"While many have complained 16GB is not enough entry-level storage as HD video and space-hungry apps have proliferated, recently Apple SVP of Marketing Phil Schiller claimed the company's cloud-focused services, like the just-launched Apple Music, help alleviate some of the storage stresses on low-end storage configurations. Other changes with iOS 9 such as smaller iOS update sizes and app thinning to load only the app assets needed for a particular device, will also help trim down storage needs."
Excuses excuses and more excuses. What about app loads especially games that can take gigs to load. Those can't be loaded from the cloud.
I won't be buying a iPhone this year. Apple knows that it's a money grab and their taking advantage of it.
Excuses excuses and more excuses. What about app loads especially games that can take gigs to load. Those can't be loaded from the cloud.
I won't be buying a iPhone this year. Apple knows that it's a money grab and their taking advantage of it.
OtherJesus
macrumors 6502
I'm still rocking my 5. Was thinking about upgrading to a 6+ for fun because I love taking photos, but I'll keep rocking my 5 because I buy my phones out of contract and call me a cheapskate, but I'll keep my extra $100 and have a fancy dinner at Morimotos.
Yummy.
Yummy.
Bubba Satori
Suspended
The epicenter of greed.
StyxMaker
Suspended
Same argument someone used on me in another thread, 'you only need 16GB but it wouldn't hurt you to have a 32GB phone for the same money'.
ardent73
macrumors regular
But Apple isn't making 33.3% 16 GB, 33.3% 64 GB and 33.3% 128 GB. They're making more 16 than 64 and more 64 than 128. But auto makers make very few base models, they make a lot of the mid-range models, and a middle amount of high end. It's not just about price, it's also about availability.
sunking101
macrumors 604
Yeah but you shouldn't be paying anymore for the 16-32GB upgrade. Most people want 32GB, as 16 is too little and 64 is too much. If Apple want to stick with the outdated and frankly tightfisted 16GB base then they should at least offer a 32GB option for 50$ rather than 64GB for 100$. The people wanting more than 32GB are in a massive minority and yet it is those who are benefitting from this storage pricing policy. Those of us who want the industry standard 32GB storage level are the ones paying through the nose for it and being ripped off.
Michael Goff
Suspended
I have a 6+ and I'm not getting ridiculous levels of refresh. I didn't even when I was using 8.x
And yet my 6+ is running even better on beta 2 than it did on 8.4. So ... there's that. :\
Donoban
Suspended
Oh lawd. Great opinion brah. Light years behind competitors? Force touch, touch ID, apple pay, iTunes, hands off, continuity, and so on. Come on, you a hard core troll?
Donoban
Suspended
How often are you making videos on your phone? If it's a lot, why would you buy 16 or even 64gb?
sunking101
macrumors 604
iTunes? Seriously?
Android has their own payment system
Force Touch isn't available on any iPhone yet
Touch ID is well implemented but again, certain Android phones have their own version
Hands Off and Continuity are useless if you don't have other Apple products and to be fair, there are several Google features that Apple can't match.
Really though, the poster you quoted was talking about hardware and other than Touch ID and Force Touch (which isn't even out yet), your comments relate to software.
