'iPhone 6s' Logic Board Suggests 16GB Base Model and Updated NFC Hardware

[doelcm82]

So if Apple could improve all those features - why not the ram?

They did improve the RAM.

 

[Dmunjal]

That makes sense. I mean, Steve Jobs priced the original iPhone at 600$. That's not trying to make a huge profit or anything, just the "right price". Oh, I forgot... you could get it for 400$ (still needing that wonderful 2 year contract) on AT&T soon after. So, essentially, you were locked into a two year contract while today you'd be spending 450$ on a phone. By the way, that means if we look at the original price of the iPhone (what Steve Jobs wanted to charge), we'd see a 50$ increase in the cost for the base model with twice the storage and a plethora of other obvious upgrades over the years.

Good old Steve Jobs, not focused on profits.

Or we could look at the MacBook Air. It started off at 1800$ for a 13" model. Now you can get that same size for 1,000$. That's also with changing out the spinning hard drive for a more expensive SSD. Or are we forgetting that the original MacBook Air had a normal Hard Drive?

Steve Jobs was such a great salesman that we seem to forget he was a salesman. He said some wonderful words, but didn't always live up to them. Let's not pretend he wasn't the king of margins, though.

I agree with the fact that he was a great salesman. We'll never know but I would think his sales skills would know that the current 16GB entry level would have bad optics and probably go with 32GB.

Tim Cook doesn't have that ability to know when he might upset the Apple faithful because he's blinded by the profit motive.

 

[Analog Kid]

Why try to make people who want the 32 look crazy when Apple has been offering the 32 for years? A 64 isn't really one that I've been desiring. Everyone used to start out on a 16.

And even less desirable, the 128.

As it once was, it must ever be? They've been offering a phone for $299 with contract for years, and still do. It used to be an iPhone 3G with 16GB, now it's an iPhone 6 with 64GB. How is that support for the 32GB model being inviolable?

Sorry, but when you're buying off the rack you have to fit as best you can. If you have 32GB of data, then there is a model that will hold that. Demanding a 32GB model just seems as strange as demanding a 19GB model, or 43GB model.

It's like walking into a movie theater and complaining they made the popcorn bucket bigger-- if you don't want to eat all the popcorn, don't eat it all.

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.

If profit takes a hit, then you're selling the wrong device at the wrong price.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a free market works. In a free market, people trade money for a product that is of equal or greater value to them than the money they're trading. We could move to a command economy where some authority (maybe even you!) could decide what we all have to buy and at what price. Profit won't be important any more because the system doesn't care what people actually want so it no longer needs that price signal. History suggests that that will lead to products that are less well suited to people needs because it substitutes the whimsy of a few for the wisdom of the many.

There are markets where price signals aren't terribly helpful, and these typically involve very specialized knowledge, very long term thinking, or basic charity work. Consumer devices is the quintessential example of where a free market is best deployed. Of course it is total profit over many cycles that matters, not just the short term, but Apple has shown the ability to adapt to new conditions pretty quickly.

It's not strange that Apple "gets away with it". It's strange to you because you're somehow obsessed with this one particular spec on one particular model. The rest of the market is probably much more interested in the overall experience, and aware of the fact that they can actually have more storage if they'd like more storage.

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.

So, in other words, you're ignoring the data and sticking to your story.

Nobody is being fooled. They're selling about 300 million devices a year. It's possible I suppose, that all those people are foolish and you are among the few enlightened ones. I suspect though that it's more likely that people are buying a package not a single spec and, in total, they're willing to take a package with 8, 16, 64 or 128GB.

If they only did 16GB, I'd agree there would be some backlash, but since they're not only doing 16GB, I don't see the source of discontent. If anyone is trying to fool anyone, I'd say it's those of you who are trying to make the existence of a low end device seem like a crisis.

 

[nouveau-apple]

Well they don't sell iPhone 5c's with anything more than 8gb. That's a huge disappointment. If you missed the iPhone 5c boat it has sailed.

 

[tripmusic]

Doesn't this make tons more sense? 32GB, 64GB, 128GB? Enough already. It's not going to kill your profits much by making the base model 32GB and the upside is less disgruntled iPhone users. I think Apple needs to really give this some serious thought

 

[Analog Kid]

Because it is not cheaper. Same pricing as in 2008.

http://aaplinvestors.net/stats/iphone/pricing/

Is cheaper. $299 in 2008 dollars versus $199 in 2015 dollars (or about $180 in 2008 dollars)-- not quite half price, but closing in fast.

And that's assuming you're just buying it for the flash chip inside.

 

[HenryDJP]

he was both.

he made the executive decisions regarding "good taste" as well as marketed the product to us during his famous keynotes.

"Good Taste". That's laughable. I can name a few Apple products under Jobs' belt that could be highly argued as "Good Taste". But when he got on stage to SELL to people, he made them THINK it was good taste. lol.

 

[StyxMaker]

"Don't like 16GB, buy 64GB then"
Really? You let Apple get away with this that easily. We all know that iPhone 3GS was the first to come with 16GB at $199. That was in 2009. Here we are six years later, we still have the same 16GB at $199. Why is that?
Apple keeps showing the graph where the CPU/GPU speed keeps increasing. What about the storage graph? And it's not even a full 16GB. After byte correction and OS space, you have around 12.?? GB. 32GB model would have free space around 28GB. That's more than double. Wouldn't it be great if they add 16GB to your $199 iPhone for free? I can't understand why anyone would be against this.

Isn't it great they added 32GB to your $299 iPhone for Free? I can't understand why anyone would be against this.

 

[StyxMaker]

Don't see the problem. In the UK I paid £699 for my 64GB which is more than you pay for the 128GB in the USA.
You should be happy that you get things over £150 cheaper than us, by buying a 64GB iPhone in the USA you are paying less than for a 16GB iPhone here.

Is your U.S. price before or after sales tax is added?

 

[sunking101]

As it once was, it must ever be? They've been offering a phone for $299 with contract for years, and still do. It used to be an iPhone 3G with 16GB, now it's an iPhone 6 with 64GB. How is that support for the 32GB model being inviolable?

Sorry, but when you're buying off the rack you have to fit as best you can. If you have 32GB of data, then there is a model that will hold that. Demanding a 32GB model just seems as strange as demanding a 19GB model, or 43GB model.

It's like walking into a movie theater and complaining they made the popcorn bucket bigger-- if you don't want to eat all the popcorn, don't eat it all.

If profit takes a hit, then you're selling the wrong device at the wrong price.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a free market works. In a free market, people trade money for a product that is of equal or greater value to them than the money they're trading. We could move to a command economy where some authority (maybe even you!) could decide what we all have to buy and at what price. Profit won't be important any more because the system doesn't care what people actually want so it no longer needs that price signal. History suggests that that will lead to products that are less well suited to people needs because it substitutes the whimsy of a few for the wisdom of the many.

There are markets where price signals aren't terribly helpful, and these typically involve very specialized knowledge, very long term thinking, or basic charity work. Consumer devices is the quintessential example of where a free market is best deployed. Of course it is total profit over many cycles that matters, not just the short term, but Apple has shown the ability to adapt to new conditions pretty quickly.

It's not strange that Apple "gets away with it". It's strange to you because you're somehow obsessed with this one particular spec on one particular model. The rest of the market is probably much more interested in the overall experience, and aware of the fact that they can actually have more storage if they'd like more storage.

So, in other words, you're ignoring the data and sticking to your story.

Nobody is being fooled. They're selling about 300 million devices a year. It's possible I suppose, that all those people are foolish and you are among the few enlightened ones. I suspect though that it's more likely that people are buying a package not a single spec and, in total, they're willing to take a package with 8, 16, 64 or 128GB.

If they only did 16GB, I'd agree there would be some backlash, but since they're not only doing 16GB, I don't see the source of discontent. If anyone is trying to fool anyone, I'd say it's those of you who are trying to make the existence of a low end device seem like a crisis.

Low-end device? It's the exact-same device with a few dollars less storage in it.
As for your capitalism lecture, how come Samsung, HTC, Sony and LG etc don't rip off their customers in order to save a few bucks? Those manufacturers seem to give exceptional specs for a reasonable price.

 

[StyxMaker]

The issue, as some have already pointed out is that many folks who aren't tech savvy will buy the 16g version, then be frustrated when they quickly run out of space. They'll then curse Apple and say 'the iPhone sucks'. So to save a few bucks, Apple may be hurting their chances of future sales

Since Apple continues to sell millions of the 16GB iPhone every year, I don't think your fantasy scenario happens nearly as often as you think.

 

[HenryDJP]

I agree with the fact that he was a great salesman. We'll never know but I would think his sales skills would know that the current 16GB entry level would have bad optics and probably go with 32GB.

Tim Cook doesn't have that ability to know when he might upset the Apple faithful because he's blinded by the profit motive.

You are kidding right? Jobs' was well known for keeping the lowest amount of ram in his machines, no matter how expensive the Mac was. While he was pretty good with CPU's, he kept ram and storage to the bare minimum so his customers would be forced to upgrade. He also began to make sure that Apple got the "upgrade" by making the ram soldered-in and non-upgradable, so the customer would be forced to BTO their Macs for maximum ram. Some of you guys are making this all about Tim Cook. He's following right Jobs' footsteps of cheapness.

 

[sunking101]

Isn't it great they added 32GB to your $299 iPhone for Free? I can't understand why anyone would be against this.

What's wrong with it? Well, the industry has moved with the times and 32GB is now the base level of storage for all other manufacturers of premium smartphones. So, nobody should be paying extra for 32GB. Period. As for the 'buy 32 and get 32 free' model, well if you only want 32GB and don't need/won't use 64GB then you're getting *nothing* free. The only people benefitting from this new pricing plan are those who would have bought 64GB in the first place, ie when 32GB was available but they still wanted more.

 

[MattXDA]

Is your U.S. price before or after sales tax is added?

Am I wrong in thinking that most states don't pay sales tax? I know Florida is like 7% and California is a bit more but I thought when you buy online you're exempt unless it's coming from your state

 

[Analog Kid]

Low-end device? It's the exact-same device with a few dollars less storage in it.
As for your capitalism lecture, how come Samsung, HTC, Sony and LG etc don't rip off their customers in order to save a few bucks? Those manufacturers seem to give exceptional specs for a reasonable price.

Low end of the pricing structure. You're right-- you get the exact same device with all the latest features except a few dollars less storage for a $100 discount. Sounds like something worth complaining about!

As for why the others don't charge higher prices-- it's because they can't. I really don't think HTC, Sony and LG are running charities-- they would very much like to steal those profits from Apple. If you think it has something to do with them just being nicer guys, you need to reexamine your underlying model.

 

[meaning-matters]

Apple keeps a useless, already overpriced, iPhone at the bottom to push people up to an even higher price. It's a dirty marketing/mental trick, and I hate it.

 

[JGowan]

Why can't they just up the base model to 32 GB already?

I wish 128GB was the standard base model capacity, but it's not practical. For a 16GB device as complex and wonderful as the iPhone 6, it's well worth the $199 asking price. $299 for the gargantuan 6 Plus is also quite fair for it's size and screen quality.

There are markets for a 16GB iPhone:

• Old people who will rarely do anything on their phones besides making calls and few simple apps (solitaire, etc.). My father-in-law is just such a person.

• Kids whose parents want to get them a standard cheaper model to be mainly used for calls. My daughter is just such a person.

Even still, one could put 588 songs (4 min. @ 256kbps each -- or 5GB); a few 1GB movies and more than a few apps with the 12.4GB they have to play with. They might have to occasionally have to plug into their computers to manage their photos and content but for a 16GB device, you can actually quite a lot of stuff on it. My girl's 16GB iPad has the following content:

207 songs • 7 movies (Avatar, The Hobbit 1, The Hobbit 2, The Hobbit 3, Harry Potter 1, Harry Potter 2, Harry Potter 3) • 111 photos • about 20 apps and she still has over a 1GB left.

Apple keeps a useless, already overpriced, iPhone at the bottom to push people up to an even higher price. It's a dirty marketing/mental trick, and I hate it.

With the smaller iOS footprint, the 16GB model will be even more viable for the kids and the old folks. If you're neither of those markets, $100 is quite worth it for an additional 48GB. If Apple was charging $100 and we only got a bump up to 32GB, I think we would have more grounds for complaints. In the long run, the $100 is worth and not a gouge at all.

 

[Anuba]

In a free market, people trade money for a product that is of equal or greater value to them than the money they're trading. We could move to a command economy where some authority (maybe even you!) could decide what we all have to buy and at what price. Profit won't be important any more because the system doesn't care what people actually want so it no longer needs that price signal. History suggests that that will lead to products that are less well suited to people needs because it substitutes the whimsy of a few for the wisdom of the many.

Right, those are the basic principles but humans are a tad more complicated than this rather binary if-ya-don't-like-it-you're-a-marxist picture you're painting. A company can be like the Soup Nazi, selling products so awesome that you put up with the fact that the Soup Nazi is a total jerk that you'd privately like to strangle, except then there'd be no more soup for you or anyone else. The sales figures aren't really telling the whole story.

Companies A and B can both have a product each that's in high demand and sell 10 million of them each at roughly the same price with roughly the same profit margin. Customer satisfaction with the actual product can be the same in each group. And yet, company A's customers all feel great about the company, life, the universe and everything, while company B's customers wish ISIS upon the company. I think what people feel with this 16 GB thing is that Apple is taking one step towards Soup Nazi territory. Only Apple has Apple products, so it's not like people will go Samsung and contaminate the Apple ecosystem with a foreign object just because they feel that Apple is becoming a bunch of shamelessly greedy ******s. Sales will be fantastic and stockholders will be delighted, I'm sure. This doesn't prevent customers from feeling ripped off, nor is that feeling a rejection of free market principles.

 

[meaning-matters]

What the component price difference between 16 and 32 (or even 64) GB actually? A few dollar no more.

 

[Michael Goff]

I agree with the fact that he was a great salesman. We'll never know but I would think his sales skills would know that the current 16GB entry level would have bad optics and probably go with 32GB.

Tim Cook doesn't have that ability to know when he might upset the Apple faithful because he's blinded by the profit motive.

I think you're looking through rose-tinted glasses at Jobs and turd covered glasses at Cook.

 

[sunking101]

I wish 128GB was the standard base model capacity, but it's not practical. For a 16GB device as complex and wonderful as the iPhone 6, it's well worth the $199 asking price. $299 for the gargantuan 6 Plus is also quite fair for it's size and screen quality.

There are markets for a 16GB iPhone:

• Old people who will rarely do anything on their phones besides making calls and few simple apps (solitaire, etc.). My father-in-law is just such a person.

• Kids whose parents want to get them a standard cheaper model to be mainly used for calls. My daughter is just such a person.

With the smaller iOS footprint, the 16GB model will be even more viable for the kids and the old folks. If you're neither of those markets, $100 is quite worth it for an additional 48GB. If Apple was charging $100 and we only got a bump up to 32GB, I think we would have more grounds for complaints. In the long run, the $100 is worth and not a gouge at all.

The iPhone is actually less complex and less capable than a similar premium Android device, so that's no excuse for the pricing plan. Premium Android handsets have four cores, three and four times as much RAM, double the base storage space, Amoled HD and higher displays etc so how come they can manage to offer them for sale at a cheaper price? It's simple, Apple charge what they like and for some reason people queue up to buy their products. This will inevitably come to a stop at some point if Apple keep shortchanging their customers.

 

[StyxMaker]

People who would buy the 64GB (or higher) option regardless are making a saving, the rest of us are being gimped. I only need 32GB so the '32GB free' thing is useless to me. Just charge me less for what I actually want!

I only need 16GB so the '16GB free' thing is useless to me.

 

[sunking101]

What the component price difference between 16 and 32 (or even 64) GB actually? A few dollar no more.

Exactly, and Samsung et al have no problem absorbing those costs. Nobody buys Android over Apple because of the specs, we hear that time and again here, so why do they offer such high specs? It's because they move with the times and like to offer a premium device which utilises the latest tech. Base storage allowances have changed due to bigger camera & video files sizes, and larger apps. It's a simple expanding cycle but Apple charge you extra to get what you *need*. How can they call the base level iPhone a premium smartphone when it is crippled by storage and RAM constraints? It's a joke.

 

[Analog Kid]

Doesn't this make tons more sense? 32GB, 64GB, 128GB? Enough already. It's not going to kill your profits much by making the base model 32GB and the upside is less disgruntled iPhone users. I think Apple needs to really give this some serious thought

How much more are you willing to pay for that 32GB device over the current 16GB offering?

Let's say it costs $10 to double the storage to 32GB (IHS thinks it's $47 to get to 128GB, probably biased towards the higher end of storage), and a third of their unit sales are low end devices-- you just hit their profit by $1,000,000,000.

Right, those are the basic principles but humans are a tad more complicated than this rather binary if-ya-don't-like-it-you're-a-marxist picture you're painting. A company can be like the Soup Nazi, selling products so awesome that you put up with the fact that the Soup Nazi is a total jerk that you'd privately like to strangle, except then there'd be no more soup for you or anyone else. The sales figures aren't really telling the whole story.

Companies A and B can both have a product each that's in high demand and sell 10 million of them each at roughly the same price with roughly the same profit margin. Customer satisfaction with the actual product can be the same in each group. And yet, company A's customers all feel great about the company, life, the universe and everything, while company B's customers wish ISIS upon the company. I think what people feel with this 16 GB thing is that Apple is taking one step towards Soup Nazi territory. Only Apple has Apple products, so it's not like people will go Samsung and contaminate the Apple ecosystem with a foreign object just because they feel that Apple is becoming a bunch of shamelessly greedy ******s. Sales will be fantastic and stockholders will be delighted, I'm sure. This doesn't prevent customers from feeling ripped off, nor is that feeling a rejection of free market principles.

Ok, so you're saying that people value the product enough, accounting for the positives of the device and the negatives of the storage of a low end model they aren't required to buy, to trade the asking price in dollars for it.

Don't get me wrong, the Soup Nazi was a great Seinfeld episode, but it doesn't change the story here: on net, people are willing to pay what Apple asks which supports the statement that they're got the right product at the right price.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Am I wrong in thinking that most states don't pay sales tax? I know Florida is like 7% and California is a bit more but I thought when you buy online you're exempt unless it's coming from your state

most states charge sales tax now even for online purchases and our msrp don't include said sales tax.