I’m not opposed to more storage in the base model, but I’m personally only using 14/64GB. They have the data and probably see a huge number of their customers are nowhere near filling the base 64GB of storage.
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
I’m not opposed to more storage in the base model, but I’m personally only using 14/64GB. They have the data and probably see a huge number of their customers are nowhere near filling the base 64GB of storage.
Of course I understand iPhone priorities. Milk the customers for as much short term cash as possible while totally ignoring what the customers really want. Timmy's strategy is make a pile of cash now and let Apple crash later after he retires in "triumph".
There is nothing to brag about for the iPhones the past few years. I have yet to meet anyone in person, outside an Apple fan site who doesn't hate faceID and feel it's a huge lose giving up touchID. Outside a moderately better camera, better CPU, and better screen (Which Samsung has had int heir flagships since 2012), there is simply no meaningful change from an iPhone 7 to an iPhone XS. Given Apple's $15 billion/year R&D fund, that is a staggering level of incompetence on Timmy's part.
Well the XS is what de 6 is. The 6 was already short with 16GB. And now the XS is short with 64GB. Apple just likes to push the limits. So the next iPhone will get 128GB. Probably with higher bitrate recording and other features that Apple adds so you speed up your memory usage.
No this isn't surprising news. But not for the reason you're alluding to here. The type of storage Apple uses has nothing to do with the topic. This story is about the profit increase on storage relative to last year. $134 vs $107. It compares apples to apples... or Apple to Apple.
I’m not alluding to anything it’s a fact stated in the article.
That price increase is due to offering a 512gb option.
My comparisons are directly correlated to the article.
Apple nvme :78c per gig
Samsung ufs: 65c per gig
13 cents difference per gb for nvme, how is that not reasonable?
Zune?
[doublepost=1537795484][/doublepost]
don't samsung make the chips? no wonder they are cheaper!
As expensive as the NAND flash memory is, it's still cheaper to go that route than pay Apple $9.99 per month for storage. I'm surprised Apple doesn't release 32GB iPhones and make everyone pay the monthly fee to store their photos and videos.
Nothing wrong with 64 as the base. However the problem is there is no 128 option. See my post above about Apple offering 128 GB for the Xr. They charge $50 more than the 64 GB tier.
Definitely. If the .25 per GB is accurate (I'd be surprised if it was true across the board), Apple's cost for 512 GB is $128. Their cost for the 64 GB is $16. So Apple's $112 extra cost is passed on to the consumer as an additional $350 charge for a gross profit of $238. This means Apple doubles their money. This margin will make up the difference in less profitable areas, allowing Apple to keep close to a 40% gross margin (and a 20-22% net margin).
Having to use an SD card slot to raise your phones storage is just not an optimal solution though. I did that with my last Android phone and it was a pain. Some apps couldn't even be stored on the card and you had to adjust settings to that photos and videos defaulted to being saved on the card. In addition, despite a high end card it was a little slower than local storage. I found myself having to actively manage what went on local storage and what went on the card. Netflix lived on local storage, but downloaded shows from Netflix lived on the card and I had to configure that. No.
That would be an awesome landmark, but...
That being said, this year was the first time I didn't go for the top storage option as I don't need to. I was always at 150+ GB available on my iPhone 8+ 256GB
Cool. We are both old farts. I don't just remember how expensive the 128 k Mac was, I owned one. And it was twice as expensive as a similarly equipped PC. Don't forget the 128 k Mac didn't even come with a hard drive. It had a single disk drive. You are right, it was clunky, often having to swap out a system floppy disk for an application disk for a data disk... I can still hear the sounds of the drive ejecting.
My point was and is.. there may have been a lot of good things about Steve, but he did NOT subscribe to a low cost model to win customer loyalty. He believed he made premium products and priced them accordingly. I just refuse to put the man on a pedestal, though I actually met him. We can debate on just how much the Apple Tax is.. but its always been there, and its always been high. Steve would be proud of the company Tim has built.
The Samsung/Apple comparison is an ancillary anecdote. Whether Apples storage is nvme or ufs or unobtanium is immaterial to the topic: increased profitability in Apple's storage offerings.
Even introducing the nvme distinction, it still doesn't support any rationale for increased profits on storage other than we did it because we can. That's not a criticism. It's business, and if the market will bear it, why not?
LOL. yes. .the Zune.. I guess I HAD forgotten it. I would love to know who thought a large expensive brown brick was going to be a hit?!
iPhone XI next year will start at 128 GB. It will also fit in with the new ability to record HDR 4K videos. They kept these features out of XS to crate differentiation With the next year’s phone.
Thank you and kudos to Apple / Tim Cook
A new report out this morning by Bloomberg's Mark Gurman and Ian King takes a look into Apple's pricing strategy for the storage capacities on the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max. Specifically, Bloomberg says that the biggest upsell for the iPhone XS and XS Max is the new 512GB storage option, which will help Apple make $134 more per iPhone than the 64GB option.
512GB is the highest storage capacity that Apple has yet to release on an iPhone, and the company charges customers a lot more for NAND storage chips than it pays suppliers. IHS Markit analyst Wayne Lam explains that storage costs Apple about 25 cents per gigabyte, and the company charges customers about 78 cents per gigabyte. Because of this, Lam says that storage "is absolutely the most profitable iPhone feature."
In research compiled by Bloomberg, the 64GB iPhone XS cost Apple $23.68 for the NAND storage specifically, the 256GB cost $66.24, and the 512GB cost $132.48. In terms of revenue, the 512GB storage option is estimated to make Apple $134 more per iPhone than the 64GB tier, an increase from $107 for the 2017 models.
According to data from InSpectrum Tech, the market price of NAND flash memory is half of what it was a year ago, but Apple's storage tiers for the iPhone have not reflected these savings.
With more storage, users can save more photos, videos, documents, music, movies, podcasts, books, and more on their iPhones, without having to worry about deleting old items for more space. Of course, Apple also offers iCloud storage at $0.99/month for 50GB, $2.99/month for 200GB, and $9.99/month for 2TB. This means that if a 512GB iPhone XS or XS Max user wants to back up most of the content on their device, they will need to opt for the $9.99/month option.
In terms of the prices for these new iPhones, which begin at $750 for the not-yet-released iPhone XR and increase to $1,449 for the 512GB iPhone XS Max, Apple CEO Tim Cook has said that the company is aiming to "serve everyone." In an interview with Nikkei, he explained that "if you provide a lot of innovation and a lot of value, there is a segment of people who are willing to pay for it," referring to the steeper prices of this year's iPhone XS and XS Max.
Article Link: iPhone Storage is 'Absolutely the Most Profitable iPhone Feature' says Analyst
for providing 512 GB as it is significant for people who love to have all their files in the phone. Only “512” GB Xs”Max” is the most “true” and “complete” ‘Max (maximum)’ with maximum size and the best newest maximum storage. Fortunate for me and others who can own the truest, ultimate and the most maximum/best storage Xs”Max” 512 GB
Sounds like you surround yourself with the same type of people as yourself, which are fairly cynical. I love FaceID, my very non-techy family loves FaceID, and these phones have plenty of innovation compared to the S9+ I have to have for work, which is a terrible device. Apple has done a lot of work and continues to push the industry forward, but it sounds like you can’t see past technical specs.
Whats up with the infatuation with SD cards? They’re cheap, unreliable and way slower...
I’ve done independent experiments in my Silicon Valley testing lab, and I’ve come to a different conclusion. After disassembling the devicemand inventorying each component, checking with the supply chain to determine costs, running thousands of Monte Carlo analyses to determine cost-to-pricing correspondence, and interviewing tens of thousands of customers to determine purchase considerations, the iPhone component with the most profitability, due to its low cost and high impact on purchase decisions, is ... love.
I wouldn’t call it ancillary if it was presented as a comparison in the article.
It’s not immaterial. Nvme cost more than ufs. Which makes it a material difference contrary to what you claim. Nvme has more bandwidth than ufs which is what allows the iPhone to record at 4K for longer than 5 min compared to Samsung or other android oems using cheaper ufs, which is inferior to nvme.
Again material difference with added benefits and cost, 13 cents per gb is not unreasonable.
The article states plainly that there is no difference in profits from last year. The jump is attributed to the larger size 512gb storage compared to 256 gb in last years top tier iPhone.
Perhaps you should reread the article?
Hardware is pretty black and white.
I'm betting actual money that Amazon has something in the works that will cause lots of "clenching" in Cupertino when they finally release it.