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 7' Thickness Likely to Approach iPod Touch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but 99% of the time spent carrying and using a smartphone, the user is not on a camping, hiking or intercontinental trip. Should phones be designed for the 1% use case?
Nothing. You're the same type of person that would say "Why do I need e-mail on my phone when I can just check it on my computer later on?" before e-mail on phones was a thing. Now it's an obvious feature that many professionals and students rely on for every day communication/planning. Same with mobile internet applications. Everyone said "Why do I need X when I can just do Y?" You may think it's obvious to have those features and if I asked you "What would your answer be to mobile email back in the day?" you'd probably tell me you think it's a great idea... However, you'd only say that because you've already experienced email today -- it's on your subconscious.
You may be fine with charging your phone every night. You might argue it's all we really need. Most people sleep at some point in the day so why not plug your phone in during that time, right? Well let me ask my children about their smart devices that last for one year on a single charge and they'll probably justify the need for 1 year battery life. Their arguments for it will be pretty convincing too because they've actually experienced the quality of life with that kinda battery life.
It might be sustainable if they introduce Force Pay™ along with that. But seriously, with the iPhone 7 there just have to be a base model bump to 32gb, right?Corrected
On one hand I'd say Apple continues to be arrogant and tone deaf pushing form over function. I'd bet any objective metric would show most users would value more battery life over a thinner design.
But since Apple sells tens of millions units regardless, they might as well push whatever agenda makes them happy.
But since Apple sells tens of millions units regardless, they might as well push whatever agenda makes them happy.
In my opinion, with the iPhone 6 the iPhone reached its plateau as a mature product, just like the iPad did a year ago with the iPad Air and Mini 2... There's little room for improvements from a hardware point of view because phones/tables are already plenty powerful for what 99% of customers intend to user them for (email, skype, browse internet, a few apps or games, etc).
You know, the law of diminishing returns: there's little point in continue pursuing the spec race. What's the point of 4k definition in a 5" screen?!?! Is it really necessary to shave another 0.3 mm off the iPhone thickness?!?!
If I was Apple, I'd steer future innovation through software, not hardware. Apple Pay was a fantastic example of this.
You know, the law of diminishing returns: there's little point in continue pursuing the spec race. What's the point of 4k definition in a 5" screen?!?! Is it really necessary to shave another 0.3 mm off the iPhone thickness?!?!
If I was Apple, I'd steer future innovation through software, not hardware. Apple Pay was a fantastic example of this.
Can you back that up with stats? Otherwise you are making the same mistake you are accusing Apple of.
I tend to agree actually. Apple Music could do this too if they could prioritize fixing the bugs.
As a consumer; I can afford it to buy the 64gb model and I don't whine and complain about having to pay extra for a superior product.
You just said that you want something extra for nothing... You're not sounding cheap at all!
But here are the facts... if they made a 32gb base model I'd be purchasing it too, to save the $100... I Still have 36gb free on my 64gb. And this is the PRIME example of why Apple is doing this... 16gb is too little for me and I'm willing to drop the extra $100 for 64gb. Apple wins. Brilliant move and if you had any clue of business you'd recognize what a smart financial move it is on their part. Does it suck for consumers? I guess... but as I said before, You can go play ball with the competition if you don't like how Apple does it. Google has 100 phones a year to choose from and Microsoft has like 20.
It's an open market and the iPhone is not the only mobile device maker on the market.
Setting a base price for a functioning model at 16gb storage isn't "screwing" a customer, it's a tactic that makes the next tier more enticing. Something they've done on all their product lines for going on 15 years. What rubs people the wrong way is that the base tier is under spec'd for their liking. This isn't the same as price gouging water at Disneyland like this were Mad Max.
You don't NEED to get an iPhone, there are cheaper choices with specs more to the liking of consumers. If Apple was the only phone maker on the market and charging $2000 a phone and only allowing the elite to buy their device then I'd say they were screwing people over, but this is nowhere near the same as for example At&t or Comcast screwing people over.
If it gets any thinner I am unlikely to buy a new one. I like for my phone to feel substantial personally. The 6/6+ is to thin already IMO. Just my .02
To paraphrase Henry Ford, if Apple asked most people what they wanted in the next phone, they'd say better battery life and an OS that is more flexible, open (mac os).
But ... Apple knows better than to give people useful stuff like that, you'll get a thinner phone, and you'll like it, dammit.
In other words Apple is already doing what they would be doing if you were them. And then some.
Yeah, I don't want a Google or MS phone. I just want Apple to give back to its loyal customers for a change, rather than squeeze every penny out of us.
You can be as sarcastic as you want, but you still come across as either cheap or entitled. Whichever one you want to be is up to you I guess.
My hunch is that if Steve Jobs were still around, price would have come down and storage would be up across the board. I'm not thrilled with everything Apple has been doing lately, but compared to everyone else, they're still without much competition.
It's pure speculation on my part, of course, but I do think Apple was better managed and better directed with Steve Jobs at the helm. He was the gyroscope and compass, and my sense is that there's a bit of drift within the company since he left, a diffusion of focus. The Beats acquisition, (at 3 billion dollars, no less) left me puzzled. Now there's chatter about a car. I don't know, it all seems rather odd to me.
It happened before, the last time he left, but hopefully this time around he was in firmer control before having to depart.
I'm encouraged and concerned at the same time, if that makes sense.
It can be argued it was better under Jobs (I don't agree, but it can be argued). But there is a reason why Apple has always been known as a high margins company. And it isn't because they were increasing storage. 3G, 3GS, 4, and 4@ all had a version that had 8GB of space. The first phone you could buy unlocked was the 4, which... was 650$. When the first iPhone came out, it was 500$ for 4GB of storage and 600$ for 8GB.
When it got subsidized? 199$ for 8GB and 299$ for 16GB. This was the 3G.
I doubt Steve Jobs would have dropped the 32GB storage option. We'd likely just have 16, 32, 64, and 128 as options.
Edit: In other words, as soon as SJ was able to get roughly 650$ per lowest current year handset, he did. He did not cut costs and hand them over to anyone.
Last edited:
If not having to pay the cost of a MacBook Air for a phone with adequate storage is cheap, then I guess I'm cheap.
If price and storage are of utmost importance, always buy last year's model. Everything will be cheaper, you might get what you personally feel is "adequate storage" for cheap enough. You don't have to have the latest and greatest. Or you could get an Android phone. There are even ones with MicroSD cards! Imagine the huge storage you can get cheap there.