Seems obvious to me but... if you're the kind of user who's constantly away from mobile and wifi signals, and records 4K60fps video... 128GB isn't good for YOU. It's fine for me.
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.
Is 128GB Enough iPhone Storage?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The thing is, storage is actually comparatively cheap. It just seems expensive because of the horrendous markup Apple reams us with. There is no great reason why Apple simply couldn't throw in 256 or 512 GB as standard.... except of course, greed.
And if they didn't ream people so hard for storage upgrades, then most people would simply get 1TB, and then Apple would offer even larger sizes. And so on.
Hmmm, not exactly.
16GB wasn't enough for really anyone.
Now I'm saying 128GB is enough, because you shouldn't be treating your iPhone as the storage location for your photos, so it's enough storage to take the photos and video while you're out and then upload to iCloud and your other backup solutions once you return to wifi.
Ultimately, if you like taking photos on your phone, you'll always be running out of space if you're not using the iCloud optimized library, so why not invest in a long-term solution that will support your ever increasing photo storage requirements and also fulfill a quality backup solution.
I think
1. The average Joe doesn't take enough pictures to fill up a 128GB iPhone.
2. The same average Joe should also be paying for iCloud storage so their iPhone data and photos are backed up, even if it doesn't come close to filling their phone's available storage.
My elderly parents and my little nieces aren't "average"? Guess I'll take that as a compliment. If you like to take photos or videos or watch videos, you'll nuke 128GB in no time, evidently, unless you pay for cloud storage AND avoid keeping much on the device. I'd argue that it's normal to want to keep copies of media you created as well as on a cloud account. It's not a backup by definition if it's the only copy.... 👀
I actually got a Dislike reaction for that post 🤣
I would not want to pay more for 256GB - and that's exactly what I'd be doing, as would millions of others, if the base storage was raised. Anyone who thinks Apple is just going to "eat" the cost difference, is deluding themselves.
Attachments
My first Macintosh had a 15 mb drive. As much as 10 floppy discs! More than anyone could ever need!
I use iCloud for my photos. But I have something like 40k photos, so even the thumbnails and previews take up a lot of space.
Or if you want to store a few music playlists or some podcasts and etc. for offline listening. Photos are not the only thing that eats up space.
I mean, it is a cellular phone. About as persistent a data connection as you can get.
I think it's also fair to assume that someone who's worried about filling up their 128GB iPhone storage has some sort of home and or work wifi.
Cell coverage is not reliable enough to depend on and many people spend a lot of time away from their home and or work networks.
Sorry, but I just don’t think the case can be made for 128 anymore. The cloud isn’t a legitimate replacement for hard wired storage.
Right there with you.
I currently have 16k photos and that only consumes 4GB on my phone because I have optimized photo storage turned on.
I have 20GB in Messages and 20GB in Podcasts.
Every other app is using 2GB and under.
So my 128GB phone has about 40GB free.
If you don't use iCloud, you'll nuke ANY size storage.
Some people don't like iCloud, and that's fine - they should buy the storage they need. Some people record extensive video at 4K60fps, and that's fine - they should buy the storage they need.
I do use iCloud (and my backup is the Mac that's set to "Download and Keep Originals" and the backups made from that Mac). Yes, I have to pay for iCloud - but it's the best option to keep my iPhone, iPad, and three Macs all in sync.
YOU may have higher storage requirements for the phone, for reasons. That's fine! Get what you need.
If you truly think the differential cost is $2, you’re more deluded than most.
Storage is cheap and nearly always getting cheaper (per GB). Apple could offer more base storage improvements year over year without cutting into their margins on the base phones; but not offering the improvements allows Apple to grow the margins instead...
No reason (other than Apple's industry leading profits) why you can't keep all your photos with you in addition to backing them up in whatever manner you choose. It's just an artificial limitation to guarantee more iCloud subscriptions and/or overpriced storage upgrades on iPhone purchases.
How much do you think the price difference Apple would have to pay is, between 128 and 256GB storage, out of interest?
So I think the conclusions are something like :
128 - Enough for most people (50%) who use phone camera like old style camera for holiday and family gathering and don’t document what they have for breakfast everyday and hardly take video. Will never fill it up anyway.
256 - Enough for those that have slight storage anxiety and just want some comfortable headroom. Also semi-heavy users who can manage their space somewhat (30%)
512 - Overkill but oh so nice and I don’t need to delete stuff for at least 3 years (15%)
1024 - Why not….money isn’t an issue. (5%)
128 - Enough for most people (50%) who use phone camera like old style camera for holiday and family gathering and don’t document what they have for breakfast everyday and hardly take video. Will never fill it up anyway.
256 - Enough for those that have slight storage anxiety and just want some comfortable headroom. Also semi-heavy users who can manage their space somewhat (30%)
512 - Overkill but oh so nice and I don’t need to delete stuff for at least 3 years (15%)
1024 - Why not….money isn’t an issue. (5%)
You're asking the wrong question.
Apple is a business. Their goal is to make a profit. If the base storage of 128GB is "Adequate" for most users (which it certainly is for me), then that's the best value to set the base storage. Those users that need/want 256 or 512 or 1TB, pay a premium to support that need/want.
Suppose Apple changed the base storage to 256GB. And, let's suppose, they say fine - it'll only cost $2 or whatever, we'll eat that difference. So your hypothesis is that it's going to just cost them $2 per phone in lost income, along with a gain of goodwill or whatever to offset that minor loss.
Here's where you're wrong - it's going to cost $2 per phone for the ones that would have been sold anyway at 128GB, plus $100 lost per phone that would have been sold at 256GB! Literally, hundreds of millions (or billions) wiped off the balance sheet. THAT is why if the base storage increases, the cost has to increase too. Not necessarily by $100, but by a lot more than $2. And that's an increase I (and millions of others) don't want to pay, because we'd see no benefit from it.
A few things:
1, I specifically asked how much you thought the price difference was because you insulted me and called me deluded for saying it was $2. I might have exaggerated by a dollar, but it's pretty damn close to the price they would be paying.
2, Do you suggest we lower the storage to 32 or 64GB to save money? As there are people that use less than 32GB out there.
3, Should the price of every device from every manufacturer go up every time more storage is offered?
4, It is irrelevant in your opinion that a 256GB SSD today costs a fraction of what a 128GB SSD cost 5 years ago? While at the same time the image and video files an iPhone generates have become larger?
5, Should Apple not offer a slow processor version, using your logic, as many people need the nice screen and other features, but not the sheer speed? That could "save money" too, right?
Last edited:
1. I said the "Differential" cost was more than $2, and then I explained why that is. The manufacturing cost is only one part of setting pricing.
2. If enough people used 32GB or 64GB, I'd be fine with a lower base storage at a lower cost. I'd likely still pay the extra to get 128GB - might even end up paying more than I do now, but not by a lot. Apple's decided on a base of 128 which works out fine for me - on iPad there's still 64GB option and that's what I have for my iPad mini. At the time I bought it, for the purpose I bought it (as a secondary iPad to my iPad Pro 256GB; mostly a book reader) that was fine. Since I've sold the iPad Pro I'd like a bigger storage but I'm waiting for the mini 7.
3. The price of iPhones WILL go up if base storage goes up. Look at history. "Should" it is a philosophical question, I live in the real world.
4. ibid
5. They do. iPhone SE, iPhone 13, iPhone 14, iPhone 15, iPhone 15 Pro
Price of computing devices always goes up as memory increases? I shouldn't have to demonstrate this is complete nonsense, but I'll be kind.
"Priced at $2,299 (as of August 2005), this 15-inch PowerBook G4 features a 1.67GHz processor, 512MB of slowish 333MHz DDR SDRAM (with an open memory slot that provides room for expansion up to 2GB); a zippy 80GB"
Hmmm, $2,299 for a laptop with 80GB of storage. My good golly gosh 🤯 Prices fell in line with industry average storage sizes and prices?!?!?!
It's a shame you had to take such a patronising tone while ignoring the history and reality of computing devices and their continued development.
If that is truly a revelation to you, look how far storage has come since the 1980's or 1960's. Prices don't need to go up endlessly and mindlessly as components go down. As others in this very thread pointed out, when rivals start offering far far better prices and specs, Apple will reluctantly have to follow suit or it will hurt their bottom line.
Sorry for being patronizing - I assure you, I'm only that way all the time.
Now you're comparing Apples to bowling balls. Obviously over time the price of technology will drop. And yes, storage cost will come down as well - over time. But if you're looking at essentially the same hardware in the short term, more storage (generally speaking) equals more cost. iPhone pricing bears that out.
What we're talking about is what's considered an "Appropriate" amount of base storage on a new iPhone. Essentially - what is the minimum storage that a significant percentage of users can work with. You seem to think it's 256GB; I've demonstrated that 128 is PERFECTLY adequate for me any many others - and certainly, some could deal with 64GB just fine (and are dealing with it, since some models still come with 64GB). Apple's decided that the 15s should start at 128, which makes sense what with the resolution of the cameras. There are likely "enough" people who would be constrained at 64GB for them to make that decision. And as my screenshot earlier shows - my phone is using well under 64GB in day-to-day use; the only reason I want 128GB is for "Surge" usage (vacations, etc.) where uploading to iCloud may be delayed.
You wish the base storage were higher, because YOUR needs/wants are higher and you don't want to pay an extra $100 - so you think everyone should get 256GB. I've demonstrated why raising the base storage to 256GB will result in a higher price despite the "minimal" manufacturing cost change, and opined that making me (and millions of others) pay for extra storage we don't need is far more of a problem than you saving a few dollars. You disagree - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Vaya con Dios.
Base storage WILL go up - when the number of users who would be satisfied with the current base drops low enough. By the time that happens, perhaps it will be at a minimal cost. Apple seems to think we're not there yet, and I agree.
The desire for more base storage is more for relatives, and other regular users, that smash through the frankly farcically small allowance. I pay more for more storage and also use cloud storage, so I'm OK, just peeved they made me waste so much on storage.
Macs are badly specced for me now to the point where I might move back to Windows for the first time in decades, because Apple are taking the piss when they ask for more money for RAM or storage than entire laptops with that amount of RAM or storage cost! I suspect next year we'll see things improve on the Mac side, as it's all got a bit extreme.
I feel users that think that having low base RAM and SSD specs have simply been duped by Apple into believing that's how they keep devices "so cheap", to quote someone else on this forum. I also disagree about the base storage being enough, if only due to the number of non techy friends and family who come to me with phone "problems", only for those problems to usually be devices with less than 1% free space. They're scared to delete stuff because they're unsure if it's gone for good or backed up on the cloud somewhere.
It might well go up when the cost to purchase 128GB modules exceeds the cost to purchase 256GB modules. Didn't that occur with the spinning junk disks Apple used to sell years ago? They finally gave users more in MacBooks because manufacturers were discontinuing the ridiculously small sizes Apple still wanted to offer 😅😅🤦♂️🤦♂️
You're just flat out wrong on this point. Apple limiting base storage to 128GB isn't benefiting you whatsoever. You're not getting a cheaper phone as a result. The component cost difference between 256GB and 128GB is 5% (as per iPhone 15 pro breakdown), doesn't cost more to integrate on the SOC and contributes much less than that to the total cost of the phone. The impact on Phone pricing is precisely zero, because Apple targets specific price points (i.e. $799) and the increased cost isn't enough to bump it up to the next price point ($899).
The 5% component cost savings matters to Apple because they can multiply it by 100s of millions of iPhones. When you multiply it by the 1 phone that a customer purchases it doesn't matter at all. You're not saving money, you're just losing future expandability and resale value.
Which component costs breakdown are you looking at, out of curiosity? The one from the Japanese newspaper? They're all guesswork to some extent, but it's interesting to see that some think that 256GB costs less than 128GB cost last year. There's a suggestion that the price difference between the two sizes right now is under 50 cents. That's hilarious if true. Selling consumers something for nothing is the ultimate trick.