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 Storage is 'Absolutely the Most Profitable iPhone Feature' says Analyst
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your arguments are strawmen.
What is wrong with chioce.
SSD is great for fast internal storage.
SD is plenty fast enough - hundreds of meg per second
Both are used for different things.
SD expands the storage you have for recording video when you don't have access to free wifi for the uploads to cloud.
Also means you can take the SD card out and put it in your computer for quick upload and editing.
Why would you want to transfer half gig of video to the cloud just to download it again to edit it.
[doublepost=1538604002][/doublepost]
Its plain to see that you only care about yourself an not about others around you.
Choice is a powerful thing.
Would you be happy for iPhones to not have a front facing camera or only 8GB storage?
How about it only being a 2.5" screen like on the iPod?
[doublepost=1538604057][/doublepost]
Again a strawman argument.
You don't need the same performance for different use cases.
What a ridiculous thing to post.
None of these items are a feature of current iPhones. However fast charging is.
You keep using the straw man fallacy but you don’t understand it at all. In fact has no bearing on what I’m saying.
No. Nvme is fast sd and ufs are slow.
One is cheap the other is expensive.
If you can’t counter what I’m saying then don’t but to label it a strawman argument is factually incorrect.
Cheap is cheap no two ways about it.
The way I look at it, if someone gives me a present, I'll take whatever they give me. Elsewise, my purchases are along the lines of my own value system.
Well I agree the apple tv is ridiculous. But the airpods and homepods would be used for listening, just as a "fast" charger would be used for charging. So those items are not ridiculous at all. Apple "should have" included the big brick with the iphone 6, and here some of us are 4 years later still grumbling about the same thing.
No you are using it.
I agreed with the article that Apple makes a killing from internal storage in phones and you counter with all these other details as to why this is not true.
Why would I trust any anecdotal reasons you give over the analyst.
Why would I trust anything you say when your figures simply don’t add up.
It’s a known fact Apple makes a killing in storage and you counter with things like but but Samsung this and that
[doublepost=1538632552][/doublepost]
Yet you still promote things like I don’t need it so no one else should either. Just so selfish.
The problem with your line of thinking is Apple is doing what Apple wants. They are not changing because you’re grumbling about it on the internet or calling others selfish because their needs don’t align with your own. If you want whatever go out and buy it or buy into a product that you like better.
You are over thinking things, this is simply an article stating that Apple is making lots of profit off their memory which is something you as an apple fan will defend regardless of whether something is true or not. You seem to not like anyone criticising Apple.
The point you seem to be missing, is..”it is what it is”. I buy based on value. If you believe Apple is profiting excessively from you, then buy another vendors products. I’ll pay the price because their products provide value to me. Because their products provide value to me I’m an Apple fan. The point you are missing is the order in which this occurs.
But please huawei, oppo or Samsung would love to have you as a customer.
Last edited:
Essentially, people who criticise Apple as not offering choice overlook one point - that we do have a choice. We can choose to either get an iPhone or some other phone which does better meet our needs. And based on Apple’s sales figures and profitability, it’s clear that what their thoughts are on this matter.
So while some users continue to debate the utility of having expandable storage in their mobile devices, the reality is that most users simply don’t care about the issue. They buy the storage configuration they need, and never think about the matter again.
So what I am seeing here is a few more pro users being upset by Apple’s design choices, while ignoring the fact that what Apple has done is in fact resonating with the mass consumer.
They are beating a dead horse here.
I'm not missing the point, you are. This article was about the obscene profits apple makes on memory and you come up with strawman arguments as to why this is not the case.
[doublepost=1538727919][/doublepost]
No, this article was about Apple making a killing in memory prices and some fanboi blindly disagrees with the well known fact using all the strawman arguments in the book.
Due to your situational bias, you missed the point, again. I don’t care what Apple makes on these phones, in fact the more they make per unit the better my portfolio looks.
The price is the price and I buy on my own value system. The salient point is the price is the price, you buy it or not.
If you believe Apple “makes obscene” profits on some iPhones, then go somewhere else; Samsung, oppo, huawei all have cheaper handsets and I’m sure they don’t make “obscene profits”. Easy, peasy. That’s not a straw man argument. That is a solid suggestion.
If memory serves me right, it started with the article on high storage margins, then by you suggesting that was why Apple didn’t allow for expandable storage (to boost their bottom line), followed by him making an argument for why expandable storage was redundant, and then the back and forth between both of you on the pros and cons.
Essentially, the whole argument seems to boil down to “however sub-par expandable storage may be, having the option is still better (for the few people who want it) than not having the option”. While he is positing that Apple is not going to bother keeping around a feature which few people use.
It doesn’t really strike me as a strawman. While there is some truth that Apple would profit more from sell users additional internal storage (and thus has a strong incentive to not allow said feature), I don’t think it’s their primary motivation for not allowing this feature. Rather, I feel this is also due to their design quirks, which emphasises integrated solutions, simplicity and minimalism.
As far as Apple is concerned, perfect products are made by cutting out everything not absolutely required in the design. To the people working at Apple, it's about creating products that are cut down to their absolute most basic form, with nothing standing between the user and the device. The products aren't about having the most features, or being the "most useful", they're about distilling out the purest mixture of form and function possible.
Back to the issue of expandable storage. Apple likely believes that it's ultimately better to have a high capacity, monolithic phone than one with an extra "feature" that many people don't care about, or even need. Having no removable media is less complicated for the end user, and helps simplify and perfect the design of the phone overall.
Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
You don’t seem to understand the concept of the strawman fallacy and how it doesn’t apply here.
Furthermore you seem to be using the term anecdotal, but that does not apply here, as I am not giving you a personal example. You however have provided an anecdotal example of your Samsung ssd drive. The nvme drive Samsung manufactures cannot be considered anecdotal, it is Being used as a reference point for standard industry prices, which proves apple is actually undercutting competition in nand prices.
As for the analyst, he does plainly state that NVMe SSD prices are higher than ufs nand which is used by Samsung, that’s why it is cheaper.
Cheaper components equal cheaper prices.
Honestly don’t believe you have actually read and or understood what the analyst is asserting.
Last edited:
No you miss the point. Strawman arguments all the time.
I agreed with the article, you now say you don't care. So now you agree with the article but previously didn't
[doublepost=1538785333][/doublepost]
I do understand, it is you who doesn't
I agree with the article.
no where in the articel does he quote nvme
then you come out with arguments like
Which is completely irrelevant to the article because it is comparing the price within the same model which uses the same memory chips.
That is a strawman argument, you are trying to equate that Apple doesn't make a killing on storage because of the type it uses. So you think it wins on that argument, which is not what the argument is about, if you compare the difference in price between what apple pay and what it charges, the type of memory doesn't event come in to that fact. hence strawman.
[doublepost=1538785542][/doublepost]
The article was about apple charging customers a lot more than what it pays suppliers for memory and hence the most profitable feature of the phone.
Then the other two went on about things like:
- Everyone else does the same
- Apple uses different memory to other phone makers
- SD, yadda
- iCloud, yadda
You agree with the article? What does that even mean? That Apple makes money from its phones.
You still miss the point. I don't care how much Apple makes from the products I buy. And I don’t shop products based on perceived profit; don’t shop TVs like that, cars, washing machines and phones. If that is your preferred method of shopping more power to you. That’s is the point you are glossing over all while giving that proverbial horse a run for his money.
The analyst doesn’t mention NVMe SSD?
Are you trying to make my point for me?
You do understand that apple uses NVMe SSD on their iPhones?
And everybody else uses Ufs, like the note 9:
Why is the article/analyst comparing apples nvme solution to the note 9 ufs based ssd, and calling it more expensive?
No **** Sherlock.
I know you personally don’t know the difference between the two and gloss over it as though it held no importance whatsoever, but this analyst doesn’t either? An analyst you claim is credible.
That’s pretty weak.
I’m going to make it as simple as I can
NVMe SSD cost and performance > ufs ssd cost and performance
Having said that when you compare other NVMe SSD vendors like Samsung, whose NVME SSD based drives are more expensive than apples and their jump in storage tier is also higher at 300 dollars for Samsung vs apples 200 dollars, and think nothing of it. Youu come off as being extremely hypocritical whether intentional or through a lack of education on the subject.
To reiterate, apples NVMe SSD is faster and cheaper than others in the market and your complaining. You sound absolutely ridiculous.
I’m relieved apple doesn’t listen to “apple users” like you.
You are missing the point. I made a statement how I agree with the premise of the article which is a well known fact and that upset you enough to argue endlessly about it and then eventually you agreed.
[doublepost=1538793437][/doublepost]
Wtf, I simply agreed with the article that Apple makes a big markup on storage and you go on about various aspect of memory.
I have never stated what I know or don’t know about storage.
It is a well known fact that Apple makes big markup on its storage.
[doublepost=1538793706][/doublepost]
No the title sums it up for you, was about how storage was the most profitable part of the iPhone.
Did you read it, or perhaps you forgot what you were arguing about with all your different strawman arguments. I guess it’s understandable that you forgot.
This is known as pot calling kettle black. We both agree apple makes money from it's phones. My point that you glossed over, ignored or missed, is that I buy on value to me, not profit by the company I'm buying from. And here we are going around in circles with you calling it "obscene profits". That says more about your thoughts on apple, hence my solid suggestion about alternative vendors.
Your points are irrelevant strawmans, you were responding to me about an article but wa Ted to talk about something unrelated. The exact definition of strawman.
It’s pointless talking to you so I’m out this time.
You obviously don’t know anything about storage or even read/understood the article you keep posting as proof.
Again What mark up?
$132.48 for the the 512gb and charging $200 to to jump between tiers is a big mark up to you? Again that just ridiculousness on your part.
$67.52 is your definition of a big markup on $1450 phone.
You sound like you just want to complain because you hate apple. It’s quite clear at this point.
You should take the other posters advice and just move on with a different vendor.
So on one storage tier the “estimated” bom Is 133.75 and going from the second highest tier, 256 to highest tier of 512gb is only 67.52.
The 512 big costs 132.48 according to the analysts “estimate”
Which is where the 67.52 comes from.
Both are the 67.52 and the 133.48 are well below what Samsung charges for their NVMe SSD drives. Which is $300 dollars.
So apples mark up is cheaper than Samsung’s and posters still call them greedy.
Sure they are. /sarcasm
I wa
Additional cost to go from 256GB to 512GB is $66.28 which results in $200 charge to customer. A mark up approx twice what you quoted. You got that wrong. Why are you waffling to me about a Samsung external SSD? Their cost for this includes case, PCB, PSU, assembly, test etc etc as well as the memory itself, in any case.
Edit: Typos
I was commenting on your poor arithmetic.
Additional cost to go from 256GB to 512GB is $66.28 which results in $200 charge to customer. A mark up approx twice what you quoted. You got that wrong. Why are you waffling to me about a Samsung external SSD? Their cost for this includes case, PCB, PSU, assembly, test etc etc as well as the memory itself, in any case.
Edit: Typos