KGI Expects New iPhones to Have 5MP Front Camera, Retain 16GB, 64GB and 128GB Capacities

[recoil80]

Actually 16GB is enough for 4000 12MP photos.

At the end of the day it's annoying, yes, but it's the users own fault if they bought a product that doesn't suit their needs.

You can take plenty of pics even with 16GB (but you don't have 16GB of free space, so it is less than 4000).
But think about videos. At 1080p you need about 150MB per minute, so with 10 minutes of video you need 1.5GB
If you are on vacation and take some videos you may have 2-3GB of space just for them, not counting the apps, pics, your music.
Sure 16GB may be enough for some users and if you constantly save your pics and video to the Mac you can deal with it, but is not a great user experience.
When I had 16GB on my iPhone 5 I happened to run out of storage while taking video and I had to frantically delete apps to make room for more pics and video since I was at a wedding party and took a lot of pics and video on the same day. Back then I decided my next iPhone should have at least 32GB of storage, I don't want to spend tons of money on a phone and have to deal with low storage every now and then.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

What's wrong with the 16?

The minute the max limit for apps was raised, the 16 became a joke, and programming apps became less about memory economy, and about getting more 'snap, crackle, and pop', no matter how big the app became.

 

[lordofthereef]

Dude, it's a single chip, its not like a whole freakin board is different for larger capacities...

and I bet it costs apple just a few bucks....

16GB is just ridiculous in a device that the OS takes up like 3-4GB and memory is non upgradeable.

The argument that the pure capitalism supporters are making here is that, despite the investment being so small, the potential profit numbers it would cut into are not as small. A difference of $3 (in just picking s number equivalent to a few bucks) is a potential loss of $97 because that person didn't buy the next most expensive model. They're also now losing $3 extra on every single base model (I believe this is still their best selling model) because of their "good will".

I'm on your side here, as a consumer, but I can totally see Apple's take on this. I haven't seen sales number estimated in a while but I know the 64gb devices were way outselling the same priced precious model (32gb) just s year before it.

 

[adh328]

That's why you and most people are wrong. You just get information from this board while Tim Cook had the data of installation based number for those are due with 2 year contract. Remember this: 6/6+ only took 20-25% installation base last time.

Don't make assumptions. I was merely stating that there seems to be less hype around the 6S than there was when the 6 came out. If you need further evidence, see this article.

http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-iphone-6s-the-peak-of-smartphone-boredom/

 

[jameskachan]

The cost difference between 16GB and 32GB (or higher) is negligible. Especially with the buying power of Apple. For the cost of the phones, it really is unacceptable.

 

[Misaki]

What's the cost difference between 16GB and 32GB? A buck or two? The RAM is where Apple really makes money on the iPhone - paying a couple of hundred of extra dollars to upgrade to 128GB for a few dollars worth of RAM is a big profit margin. Even in pushing the cloud services, camera resolution alone should mandate a base of 32 GB.

The difference is in power. It's really in Apple's best interest to offer whatever size consumes X power. So if a 16GB (128Gbit) chip uses the same power as a 64GB (512Gbit) chip, then that is what they will use. I have a feeling (without looking at a tear-down) that they have to use single-chip's, so it's likely that Sandisk just doesn't produce 32GB (256Gbit) chips, or the yield is too low.


Or the more obvious conclusion is that 16GB is good enough for the population that wants an iPhone but doesn't really "need" an iPhone. Everyone else always goes for the highest storage tier otherwise. Apple clearly wants only 3 sizes, so it makes more sense to drop the 32GB than the 64GB option since the latter is more profitable and more likely to sell better. Next year we might see 16GB 64GB and 256GB if that's what's available.

It's also MLC flash memory from Sandisk , where as the marketing information says they only come in 16GB MCP variety. Apple also used Hynix on the 6, so it seems that iFixit only ever picked 16GB models. The Hynix part lists show that they can stack 8 (8,16,32,64GB) respectively so it actually seems like the 128GB model is the odd man out.

 

[deconstruct60]

It would. Millions of people would decide not to pay an extra $100 because for many 32gb is enough. That's hundreds of millions of dollars in pure profit.

Don't really have to pay. iPhone 6 will probably drop $50-100 after 6s is introduced. Folks who have a much higher priority for storage space can buy a 64GB iPhone 6 instead. It is not necessarily a "eat cake and have it too". If more folks bought iPhone 6 64GB version than iPhone 6s 16GB then Apple would correct on future iterations. That probably isn't going to happen though because the "other stuff" in the iPhone 6s probably has higher value to a large fraction of folks than merely the additional memory.

It would be better for everyone if Apple used the pricing strategy for the Watch on the iPhone.

What? $349-$10K for exactly the same electronics and flash memory storage capacity.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

There is still a 16GB model because Apple is super business smart. They know 16GB is totally insufficient in the current generation devices, but they also know that 32GB is fine. The problem then is that if they provided 32GB in the entry model, they would sell, not just a few fewer 64GB models, but orders of magnitude fewer 64GB models.

By artificially limiting the entry model to 16GB, they don't just have "up-sell" incentive, they force the "up-sell" because the customer doesn't want a crippled device. This approach contributes significantly to Apple's cushy profit margins (considering the actual cost difference between 16 and 64GB is less than $10 - probably half that with their volume purchases) and the fantastic revenues the stock holders love to see.

What Apple's "business smarts" are blind to is the fact that this behavior (product offerings) breeds resentment instead of loyalty.

Yes, but...

The 'value conscious consumer' is going to think they can 'get by' with the 16, and ends up in short order wishing they had bought the 64, but they can't. Not without paying more, and yadda yadda contract BS...

THAT is one of the big selling points behind the 'droid' phones. Many have slots for SD or other cards for more memory. The iPhone does not. If you under buy, you are stuck...

 

[bushido]

if they want people to move to the cloud they should at least up the pathetic 5GB free storage.

 

[powerbook911]

I would love to see 32GB on the entry level. However, sales of 64 and 128 would be much lower then. I understand their conflict.

However, it would be nice if it got to a point one day that they could offer only 64 & 128, moving all devices down $100.

 

[lordofthereef]

You can take plenty of pics even with 16GB (but you don't have 16GB of free space, so it is less than 4000).
But think about videos. At 1080p you need about 150MB per minute, so with 10 minutes of video you need 1.5GB
If you are on vacation and take some videos you may have 2-3GB of space just for them, not counting the apps, pics, your music.
Sure 16GB may be enough for some users and if you constantly save your pics and video to the Mac you can deal with it, but is not a great user experience.
When I had 16GB on my iPhone 5 I happened to run out of storage while taking video and I had to frantically delete apps to make room for more pics and video since I was at a wedding party and took a lot of pics and video on the same day. Back then I decided my next iPhone should have at least 32GB of storage, I don't want to spend tons of money on a phone and have to deal with low storage every now and then.

If rumors of the new camera are to be believed, pics AND video will be taking up even more space with this upgrade.

My mom has a 16gb 5s with virtually nothing on it but pictures. She does take a lot of pictures and video, and I've had to backup and wipe her pics/vids three times since she has had it (about two years).

I can absolutely see low storage quickly becoming not an issue for people who enjoy taking pictures with these newer models.

 

[agsystems]

I don't see why they can't offer 4 size models.

16 GB - $199
32 GB - $249
64 GB - $299
128 GB - $399

And so on. This would be in line with how android manufacturers price their phones (see the new Moto X). But who knows. They could do this, and they may. This might get more people to go for a 32 GB model instead of sticking with the 16 GB, which might make Apple more money. I'll still go 128. I'm a storage addict.

This looks like a reasonable - Apple keeps their magical margins

It would. Millions of people would decide not to pay an extra $100 because for many 32gb is enough. That's hundreds of millions of dollars in pure profit.

I'm all for companies pricing to maximize profit and offering different service levels, but not when it arbitrarily disadvantages the lower end customers. In my industry that's an ethical violation.

It would be better for everyone if Apple used the pricing strategy for the Watch on the iPhone.

@kcamfork, provided a simple solution that will keep Apple's profits and ensure customers have more choice.

16 GB - $199
32 GB - $249
64 GB - $299
128 GB - $399

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Dude, it's a single chip, its not like a whole freakin board is different for larger capacities...

and I bet it costs apple just a few bucks....

16GB is just ridiculous in a device that the OS takes up like 3-4GB and memory is non upgradeable.

Wouldn't it be bizarre to find out that the chips are all the same, and they just put a cap on the memory accessible...

I remember one PeeCee company did that for a while. Until a tech/geek found out about it, and re-partitioned their drive.

I think it was the Leading Edge company(?) and they weren't in business for long as I remember...

For Apple, using the same chips in all the phones would shorten manufacturing time, and I'm sure at their volumes, the price difference isn't very much...

But anyway...

 

[lordofthereef]

if they want people to move to the cloud they should at least up the pathetic 5GB free storage.

Right? Their "excuse/reasoning" is cloud storage. All the while it costs you about as much for the cloud storage as it does to just drop the extra $100 on the hardware. Lol. If cloud is so viable, why even sell muktiple versions of the device (clearly I know the answer, I am just tired of the PR BS responses where the consumer is presumed to be an imbecile).

 

[840quadra]

The force touch motors and electronics are free? New cameras are free? Improved touch ID is free? larger bundle of free software and lifetime upgrades are free? <SNIP>

I doubt the extra price (to apple) per device would be anywhere north of $5 if they were to use 32gb as the base memory as opposed to the currently offered 16gb. Considering the price of Apple devices compared to similar phones on the market, it would be hard to convince me that they aren't earning enough money per device to cover their internal costs.

Lets also remember they earn 30% on application sales, they sell ads, music, video, and other services to users of these devices. Again, I feel their price points are set more for earning profit, than they are for customer service.

I don't think asking for 32gb as a base model is too much to ask, given the overall cost of these devices, and I am 100% fine that some don't agree with my assessment.

 

[yesyesno]

The 16GB version surely meets the needs of some users but it ruins the iOS and iPhone experience for many more. I work in an Apple Store and customers come in on a routine basis asking for our help when their phone will barely function because it's so short on storage. My colleagues and I lament the idea of another iPhone generation with 16GB of base storage.

So the real question is why the most profitable company in the world can't shell out an extra few dollars per device by upgrading the internal storage from 16GB to 32GB. It has nothing to do with user experience and everything to do with high profit margins and beating analysts' estimates. It really raises the question of whether Apple has started to focus less on making a product that enriches customers lives versus one that allows Apple to keep hoarding hundreds of billions of dollars in cash.

Google has been offering their Nexus devices for a while now starting at 32GB whether customers need it or not. If they want to use that much, cool, but if not, then that's also great because they'll never get the dreaded "out of space" message. Why is Google offering a better user experience in this regard? Isn't Apple supposed to be the leader in things just working?

 

[The Doctor11]

iOS 9 will take up a lot less space. Just saying, not that I'd ever consider a 16GB iPhone.

Not really...

 

[igazza]

I want 256GB

 

[deconstruct60]

16GB with a device that will reportedly record 4K video, is laughable.

You are not required to record 4K video. Also what extremely high utility does recording 4K video have if going to primarily keep this 4K video on the iphone that lacks a 4K screen? Most likely to get something out of recording 4K video you will move it to somewhere else that has a 4K screen. While moving it you can kick it off the phone. Vine/Periscope/Instagram video snippets are uploaded and can be chucked once done.

 

[wyarp]

Kuo also claims the iPhone 6s will have an improved front-facing FaceTime camera with a 5-megapixel sensor, and reaffirms three much-rumored features: Force Touch, a new rose gold casing color and an upgraded Touch ID fingerprint scanner.

Pleeeeeeeeease let the rumour about the 5mp front camera be true. Up until the iPhone 5 the front facing camera was utterly useless, but even with the 5/5S which is pretty much the same as the 6 is it not?) the resolution is still sub-par. It's fine from pics that are solely viewed on the iPhone, but try so view them full screen on a tablet or desktop and the resolution remains too low.

Given the explosion of the 'selfie' in recent years it makes sense to make a big increase in its resolution. It's the one feature above all that I want to see in the 6s! (oh, and by 'selfie' I predominantly mean group selfies. Too often when with friends I don't want to hand the phone over to some stranger to take a group pic of us, nor have one of us step out of the group to take the pics. It's not for narcissistic tendancies!)

 

[lordofthereef]

This looks like a reasonable - Apple keeps their magical margins


@kcamfork, provided a simple solution that will keep Apple's profits and ensure customers have more choice.

16 GB - $199
32 GB - $249
64 GB - $299
128 GB - $399

People here are just going to say that that 32gb eats into the potential profit that the 64gb would provide if it simply didn't exist. "Apple needs to maximize profit" despite the fact that a few hundred million gross is probably the equivalent of you making an additional fifty bucks this year.

And before anyone says anything along the lines of "would you give $50 up s year just because?", I will say, "yes, if I knew that a mere $50 would effect millions of people in a positive way, I'd give it up inc a heartbeat.

 

[agsystems]

I doubt the extra price (to apple) per device would be anywhere north of $5 if they were to use 32gb as the base memory as opposed to the currently offered 16gb. Considering the price of Apple devices compared to similar phones on the market, it would be hard to convince me that they aren't earning enough money per device to cover their internal costs.

Lets also remember they earn 30% on application sales, they sell ads, music, video, and other services to users of these devices. Again, I feel their price points are set more for earning profit, than they are for customer service.

I don't think asking for 32gb as a base model is too much to ask, given the overall cost of these devices, and I am 100% fine that some don't agree with my assessment.

The issue is not the 32gb - the problem from Apple's POV - is that 32gb might be chosen by those that now are buying the 16gb and 64gb model hurting their margins.

 

[recoil80]

I don't see why they can't offer 4 size models.

16 GB - $199
32 GB - $249
64 GB - $299
128 GB - $399

And so on. This would be in line with how android manufacturers price their phones (see the new Moto X). But who knows. They could do this, and they may. This might get more people to go for a 32 GB model instead of sticking with the 16 GB, which might make Apple more money. I'll still go 128. I'm a storage addict.

iPod touch has 4 storage tiers at exactly the same prices you wrote and is a smart move to save $50 and buy the 32GB instead of the 64. $50 is 20% of the price, so a huge saving.
But the real price of an iPhone is $649 so if you save $50 is less than 10% of its value.
I'd be happy to save $100 if the base model was 32GB, but in the 4 models scenario I think I'd buy the 64GB and spend $50 more.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Don't make assumptions. I was merely stating that there seems to be less hype around the 6S than there was when the 6 came out. If you need further evidence, see this article.

http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-iphone-6s-the-peak-of-smartphone-boredom/

If Apple paid the SAME costs for 16 gig and 32 gig, Apple would still offer the 16 gig as the entry level.

Why? Too many people would be happy with the 32-gig and not bother upgrading to the more profitable 64 gig model. This creates market differentiation that they hope will create an artificial need for the much higher priced 64-gig model. It is a forced up sell.

Folks, this is simple: Don't upgrade if you don't need the 64-gig model. Keep your money. Is it really burning a hole in your pocket? Are you living on credit, for god's sake? Apple will offer you the model you want -- at most -- in another year. Possibly less -- 6 months -- if this blatant marketing exploit smacks back in their faces. Vote with your pocketbook or be a brainless sheep.

 

[HiVolt]

The argument that the pure capitalism supporters are making here is that, despite the investment being so small, the potential profit numbers it would cut into are not as small. A difference of $3 (in just picking s number equivalent to a few bucks) is a potential loss of $97 because that person didn't buy the next most expensive model. They're also now losing $3 extra on every single base model (I believe this is still their best selling model) because of their "good will".

I'm on your side here, as a consumer, but I can totally see Apple's take on this. I haven't seen sales number estimated in a while but I know the 64gb devices were way outselling the same priced precious model (32gb) just s year before it.

Yeah, i get it too... But jeez, this is not some freaking company struggling to make ends meet, or a company with several years of declining profits....

You'd think they could toss customers a bone... Like the other poster said, this kind of nickle-and-diming breeds resentment, not loyalty when these customers run out of storage quickly.