the bottom line is that 32GB base storage is *the industry standard* for a premium smartphone.
Can you point me to the IEEE number for this standard (or what ever the governing body is)? I presume you can't be suggesting it's a de facto standard given that the second highest volume vendor worldwide doesn't seem to conform...
I think what you mean is that there are other vendors who don't offer a 16GB device and start their offerings at 32GB and you believe that's what all vendors should do. That's nothing like an industry standard, it's more like grandiose rhetoric.
Nope, you are misunderstanding one chart. You should see the growth of other brands and the quantity of smartphones et all sold by them. If you think apple should stick to 16GB because of this one chart then you only understand supply/demand simplistically and erroneously. Hell, that is the whole reason apple decided to increase the size of the iPhones in the current gen and brought the ipad mini. It's been around 6 years since apple bumped the SSD the last time. In 6 years SSD has gone way down in the price that now they don't have an excuse to charge $100 more for 16GB. If they had an expansion slot then there would be no backlash, but there will be if they stay at 16gb. Just downloading all the apple apps for iOS will take a good chunk out of that 16GB, LMK when you record your 4K 5 sec video, because even w cloud and LTE the 16 size can't handle todays tech that is inside its own machine. BTW you are mixing the words low end device w small SSD, not the same.
I keep looking through your posts looking for information, and all I keep finding is unsupported assertions. If you are going to say it's important to look at something, for example, it would be more convincing that you know what you're talking about if you provide the something to look at and explain why the trends are specifically the result of Apple providing a 16GB option-- preferably with more nuance than "apps take space".
Yes, that profit chart is a snapshot in time because it was simply support for the argument that Apple does not have a disastrously wrong product mix-- if they did, they wouldn't be hoovering up all the profit in the market. It's that simple. Profits indicate how much the market values a product beyond the cost of making and selling it. Maximizing profits is challenging-- you need to make careful tradeoffs.
Doing your work for you, at the bottom, I show 4 years of data to establish a trend that, frankly, doesn't do your point much good.
If you think maximizing unit sales, or "quality" is why Apple should abandon the 16GB device, then you understand business simplistically and erroneously. No matter how high your unit sales, you don't stay in business long shipping a dollar out with each device. The market clearly doesn't value whatever your definition of quality is as much as you do.
Samsung is still in the fight, but there's nothing in this data that suggests they're going to outlast the pack. They're retaining marketshare by drastically slashing profit.
Apple bumped their storage to
128GB in 2014. That's last year, not 6 years ago.
Apple isn't charging $100 more for 16GB, they have 3 price tiers that are $100 different: 16GB, 64GB (48GB more) and 128GB (64GB more).
I see no evidence of a backlash other than a few vocal members of the forums. I suspect the lack of a backlash is largely due to the fact that
you can get a higher capacity iPhone if you want one.
You are extrapolating your use cases on the public in general as though the way you use your device is the minimum requirement for the market.
I just double checked: the smallest storage device is, in fact, at the low end of the lineup.
