Precisely.
That is the logic that Schiller is using. Hell, let's make it 4GB for all the fuddy-duddies that don't use the App Store or take photos or videos. Even more profit for Apple, then.
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 6s' Logic Board Suggests 16GB Base Model and Updated NFC Hardware
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Precisely.
That is the logic that Schiller is using. Hell, let's make it 4GB for all the fuddy-duddies that don't use the App Store or take photos or videos. Even more profit for Apple, then.
If by "all it is," you mean that Steve Job's application of that philosophy transformed Apple into the world's mightiest company, then yes, you're right.
That's because with Telcos, you usually have little choice but to go with whoever the incumbent is in your area. For me, I have 3 telcos in my country, but they are pretty much in bed together, with similar pricing structures, and equally crappy infrastructure and customer service, so you are equally screwed regardless of which you sign up with.(None of this is addressed at you, just commenting on the overall)
Unfortunately, it's a business decision, but based on MONEY, not that there isn't enough NAND. If it were the latter, they are shooting themselves in the foot by forcing people to buy 64 when they only need and want 32. It is ALL ABOUT MONEY with Apple. You'll hear everyone on this forum complain about the big Telcos making money, but no one cares about Apple's unbelievable pricing and their excessive available cash.
Personally I don't care if companies make money and make a lot of it. Its is really good to have a free market. I just can't stand the double standards with Apple. They are the greediest company this planets has ever know, BY FAR.
With Apple, nobody is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to buy Apple products, nor will it spell the end of the world if you don't do so. You have alternatives, from Android smartphones to Windows PCs. Since countless consumers continue to vote with their wallets and buy Apple products, I presume it is because they have weighed their choices and felt that Apple products still represent the better choice for them, despite their smartphones sporting 1gb of ram and laptops coming with soldered ram and all.
Or perhaps the people who do need more than 16gb of storage simply bought the 64gb version and moved on. That extra $100 pretty much pays for itself quickly enough now that they have more space and no longer need to fret over managing their internal storage. I presume they are happily using their iPhones and not wasting their time griping on Macrumours.
You speak as though flash storage and ram are the only things that cost money in iPhones. You mean R&D on the hardware, the form factor, the anodisation process, the camera, the processor, iOS updates and features like Touch-ID or the upcoming Force-Touch etc all come free?
Balderdash.
He loved Apple products, and that was plain to see in the keynotes. Watch the 2007 iPhone introduction. There was a show of genuine affection, that I have never seen from Tim Cook.
Steve Jobs was Apple. He loved Apple as if it were his own son. It was a love that was well-founded, and inspired millions of us to love Apple to a level which companies rarely enjoy.
At this point, I'll work to save the extra money and get a 64GB, because I'm starting to get to the point where 12GB (since not all 16 is usable!), but it's ridiculous that I need to spend that much when in reality I only need a couple of gigs more.
And people who only need 28GB probably think it would be ridiculous to pay for 32 since they only need 28, and so on...
Dear Apple, are you going to pay for my data charges no? Then FU.
Well said.
I wallow far too much in the enjoyment of "Steve would have never," but you put it so reasonably.
Even Tim Cook sounded embarrassed when he mumbled the intro of the $17,000 Apple Watch, and I surmise that it was due to the ghost of Steve Jobs on his shoulder.
I agree completely.
But they won't. Why? Because every year, they can sell every iPhone they can possibly produce.
While demand is that high, why bother cutting their profits for 'reputation'?
Insightful post.
Sometimes, it's better to take less profit, even if the accountants say otherwise.
I disagree.
Apple already sell cheaper iPhones for children and the elderly: their older models, which they reduce the storage for.
Their flagship models should be at least 32GB base, and preferably 64GB, if not 2TB.
Uh, no?
People would see paying $199 for 32GB as a much more logical way to spend money if they only need 28GB, compared to spending an extra $100 and having over half of the space unused.
People who only use 8GB aren't complaining that it's ridiculous to pay for 16GB.
Not only that, your argument is flawed because you're leaving 4GB of space with 32, compared to 36GB with a 64. Obviously it would make way more sense to buy a 32 instead of a 64 in this case, no?
Ben, I've been an Apple customer since the 90's. You completely misunderstood my post. I meant that Jobs was not a product guy in terms of him getting involved hands-on with product designs and build. He was a visionary but he was not an engineer. Bill Gates knew computer programming with his eyes closed in deep sleep, Steve Jobs was not a computer guy in the sense of knowing anything about programming and designing computers. He envisioned the possibilities of what the best computer could be in reality and he was obviously right, but he did not design or build the Mac. That's what I meant. His job was to sell it and he did that better than anyone else could. His job was to foresee the future of computing and to sell it to the public.
c0ntradiction much?
you're right Jobs didn't write software however envisioning possibilities--saying this is a good idea, this is a bad idea NEVER--is product design.
I honestly dont know how you've managed with a 16 GB base model. I've had every iPhone since the 3G, and I've always owned the 16GB, and it's always been enough.
As it stands now, on my 16GB 5S however...
I have NO music - zero. I stream all music.
I have 1,000 photos - 7 short (under 1 minute in length) videos.
And about 50 apps (not many are even large in size).
I've got 2.01 GB's left.
When you combine all of the app info that is stored, the app size itself, photos, videos, text message data and other misc. storage info...you are really stretching it thin. As it is I can't even store music on my phone any longer. The 16GB option is truly outrageous and ridiculous - almost as much as their 3-month Apple Music money grab, before they rescinded. I'm starting to worry for Apple, PR-wise.
Bad decisions all around. Someone's gotta go or I'm selling my stock.
Maybe the solution is to make the entry 32 gb, and the next step up 128gb. This way the lowest tier gets a significant upgrade, but the next tier up is still palatable. With camera and video sizes increasing it just makes sense to have some increase in storage memory, regardless of the BS Apple tries to say with cloud storage. But this way Apple still gets the upgraders. 16gb base memory is just too obvious of a rip off, at least lube up before giving it to the consumer Apple.
I still don't agree.
I appreciate that Jobs wasn't technically trained as an engineer or programmer in the way that, say, Woz was.
And yes, he was an exceptional salesman; a veritable wizard, no less!But he certainly was hands-on, to the point of obsession. That was one of the things that separated him from most CEOs, his hands-on approach to the products. I would say that that attention to detail was critical in transforming Apple into the success they became, and without it, they would not only not have succeeded, but would probably have gone bust.
As a for-profit company, wouldn't Apple simply stop making the 16GB model if it didn't sell? If it costs you money to make something that isn't selling, you generally stop making it. So, following this logic, if people stop buying the 16GB model, we won't have a 16GB model to worry about any more. Likewise though, if it continues to sell well, continue to expect Apple to offer it.
If the argument is that unsuspecting people buy the low-end model and then realize it doesn't meet their needs and they're upset, then logic would dictate that the bad press from that would impact sales and Apple would be driving people to the competition. I can't imagine that Apple would be open to that either.
As far as cost, you're always going to pay a premium for Apple products. Apple products could be cheaper if Apple changed their business model, including changing their business practices where they control the software, hardware, and much of the ecosystem that supports the device (e.g. iTunes). Of course, it is those business practices that make Apple products what they are - otherwise you're looking at a Google/Android or Microsoft/Windows phone solution - not to say that those are inferior, but only that those are built on a model where software (OS) development and hardware development are divided across multiple companies.
Of course, I've purchased 32GB or 64GB models for the last few years anyway. There is an initial higher cost, but also higher trade in value.
If the argument is that unsuspecting people buy the low-end model and then realize it doesn't meet their needs and they're upset, then logic would dictate that the bad press from that would impact sales and Apple would be driving people to the competition. I can't imagine that Apple would be open to that either.
As far as cost, you're always going to pay a premium for Apple products. Apple products could be cheaper if Apple changed their business model, including changing their business practices where they control the software, hardware, and much of the ecosystem that supports the device (e.g. iTunes). Of course, it is those business practices that make Apple products what they are - otherwise you're looking at a Google/Android or Microsoft/Windows phone solution - not to say that those are inferior, but only that those are built on a model where software (OS) development and hardware development are divided across multiple companies.
Of course, I've purchased 32GB or 64GB models for the last few years anyway. There is an initial higher cost, but also higher trade in value.
I dont understand how people dont get why customers are mad. Its not like the base memory hasnt been upgraded in the past. Original Iphone - 8gb, when technology of the iphone made 8gb too small the base was upgraded to 16gb per the Iphone 5. Lets say you dont buy that though. Lets say that you argue that the 16gb model is a entry point model for the Iphone. That would be a great argument.....except......when a new model comes out,Apple lowers the price of the last generation model and sells that as a entry point. If thats not enough they also have the Iphone C which they specifically made as a cheaper....aka entry point for price conscious consumers. So, to make the argument that its the base,introductory model is ludicrous. Apple has given customers at least two options for a entry into the Iphone. The 6s line is the flagship model. Top of the line. It absolutely,at this stage, has to have the base at 32gb. It just makes the product not function up to its true capacity to do less. If there wasnt a "c" Iphone line I would agree.
Good. Vote with your wallet. You'll sure teach Apple a lesson. I bet they're reading your comments and are concerned about someone online saying they're not going to buy an iPhone.
That's actually a good point. A lot of people have said that the 16GB model is for grandma/mom/dad/boyfriend/girlfriend who isn't too tech savvy and doesn't use their phone a whole lot. In this case, the "last year model" (which is still a very powerful phone) would be perfect for them, as it's $100 cheaper and comes with the 16GB they will need. The flagship iPhone model, should start at 32GB as it is the biggest, most powerful, $650 model. A light user wants the newest model anyway? Great, then they get more storage than they'll ever need.
If only it were that easy!
The concern for me as a user is the camera upgrades and increasingly large size of apps. I'm *sure* this will be the last release with a 16GB base model, and they're saving the 'ooooh, ahhhh' 32GB for iPhone 7. But that's crap, actual crap. If you're going to bump up the camera to 12MP, offer higher video resolution, HOW are users to use any of that if they don't use the cloud?
Sorry, I don't like the Cloud. I like knowing where my sensitive information is, and I don't want it sitting around on the internet waiting for someone to sniff out my password. I saw what happened to the celebrities, thanks. So, yeah! All these new features...and I've got 2.01 GB's to use them on. What's that, another 100 photos?
It's literally at the point where 16GB isn't even enough - they won't even sell you the 8GB iPhones in stores. (I work for a carrier). Just the iOS installation alone makes the phone almost unusable by the time you have your hands on it.
This is really, really bad.
Sorry, I don't like the Cloud. I like knowing where my sensitive information is, and I don't want it sitting around on the internet waiting for someone to sniff out my password. I saw what happened to the celebrities, thanks. So, yeah! All these new features...and I've got 2.01 GB's to use them on. What's that, another 100 photos?
It's literally at the point where 16GB isn't even enough - they won't even sell you the 8GB iPhones in stores. (I work for a carrier). Just the iOS installation alone makes the phone almost unusable by the time you have your hands on it.
This is really, really bad.
I honestly don't know what you are disagreeing with. I said he's not doing the building of the product or the programming. Of course he was in the design labs making sure what he visually wanted the Mac or iPhone to be was implemented, but that's as far as it went. If you disagree please check the history of Jobs and/or watch the Pirates of Silicon Valley. You do remember that Jobs was fired at one point so in the beginning he wasn't doing Apple a ton of favors getting them to profitability. Don't make him out to be this perfect soul, because he wasn't.I still don't agree.
I appreciate that Jobs wasn't technically trained as an engineer or programmer in the way that, say, Woz was.
But he certainly was hands-on, to the point of obsession. That was one of the things that separated him from most CEOs, his hands-on approach to the products. I would say that that attention to detail was critical in transforming Apple into the success they became, and without it, they would not only not have succeeded, but would probably have gone bust.
I think you're posting without thinking. How else could you possibly think being in the design lab dictating what the product should do and look like isn't "hands on with product design." You clearly don't understand Steve Jobs.