Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

No 32GB iPhone 6s

Apples n' Stone said:
You say this, but there are still customers happy with the small. Just that one in the line haggling to get a larger cup for the small price. Eventually they probably will, but the demand is too great right now if the leaks prove to be true. Only Apple will decide when that is, for now you might just need to pay the extra £75 or whichever currency your region uses if you truly want the extra storage, if not I suggest using iCloud for some things.
Click to expand...
There are likely customers that would still be happy with 512 MB of RAM and making it work as well as it could for them simply because it would be the cheapest model sold and they don't know/care any better. Doesn't really mean it's good or right for the rest and in general.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit
C DM said:
There are likely customers that would still be happy with 512 MB of RAM and making it work as well as it could for them simply because it would be the cheapest model sold and they don't know/care any better. Doesn't really mean it's good or right for the rest and in general.
Click to expand...

You are sounding as if the 16gb is the only version available. Apple already discounted the 64gb by $100 last year. That was a good deal.
 
617aircav said:
You are sounding as if the 16gb is the only version available. Apple already discounted the 64gb by $100 last year. That was a good deal.
Click to expand...
That was, I got a few of them too. But that doesn't really speak much for not progressing beyond the 16 GB as the minimum at this point in time. It's a fairly similar to the whole thing about not having gone to 2 GB of RAM already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit
Apples n' Stone said:
To pay as little as possible for that particular device, is what is meant by "an iOS device" but I understand the lack of clarity. I shall ammend this in the post (It is a Wiki). The thing people fail to understand is that the base storage is aimed at business customers for instance, not those who wish to install every iteration of Angry Birds or shoot hours of HD porno.

If you want more storage, back in the day people paid more for 32GB. These days, you pay the same amount for double that. The marketting technique is to encourage the upper purchase with the extra 32GB promised. What people are asking for is not to pay the extra, or to reduce the prices. Apple may do this, but we should not feel ENTITLED to it.

I am glad you see this, it would be cheaper for the customer yes. But arguing that because a company is successful it MUST sacrifice some profit margins per device is what I disagree with. If they do, the tactical advantage is to aim to sell devices to a larger quanity of customers. What people fail to understand is that we do not make these decisions, Apple do.

Be thankful you are not after an S6 Edge. Where you must pay £749 which is 1152$ (for a 32GB model). And over £800 for 64GB. Which Apple charge less for the 128GB Plus model. And no SD slot anymore. I am not saying it is wrong, to hope for a storage bump. But acting like it is Apple's civic duty to offer a freebee is irritating. (I know you are not, that is just my point).
Click to expand...

Thanks for debating this in a mature manner. I know that's a silly thing to be thankful for, but usually when this storage debate comes up there is a lot of name calling, entitlement accusing, and hyperbolic remarks. It's nice to see that someone can put some well-thought-out logic behind why they disagree with me.

I do agree that it is a smart business decision by Apple, and they are in fact a business and are trying to make as much money as possible. The 16 to 64GB up-sell is definitely much more appealing than the previous 16 to 32GB, and it even worked on me. It just irks me that they can get away with that, because we as consumers are supposed to benefit when technology advances and becomes cheaper.

I just hope that the rumor is not true. If it is, I shall be skipping the 6s and hope that the 7 has a better base storage amount. It will be long overdue by then!
 
  • Like
Reactions: willmtaylor
OK.., let me help again.

Yes 32GB would be cool and Apple should do it.....But..,,,

If they dropped the 16GB they wouldn't gain any sales but the would lose the $100 that so many paid to upgrade to the 64GB

Unless you think you are going to take Tim Cook's place and change this. It isn't going to change. So deal with it and spend the extra $100 if you need the capacity or just move along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apples n' Stone
ricktat said:
OK.., let me help again.

Yes 32GB would be cool and Apple should do it.....But..,,,

If they dropped the 16GB they wouldn't gain any sales but the would lose the $100 that so many paid to upgrade to the 64GB

Unless you think you are going to take Tim Cook's place and change this. It isn't going to change. So deal with it and spend the extra $100 if you need the capacity or just move along.
Click to expand...
And you can still discuss it in places like this that are set up for that very type of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chicki
This sums up Apple under Tim very well.

Fair Use Quote:
  • "Switching to a 16-64-128 scheme was genius on their part. It drove A LOT of people to the 64GB upgrade that would have otherwise picked the 32GB if it were the base model (me).

  • This allowed them to increase iPhone average selling price (ASP) and margin while essentially doing nothing. Investors ate it up.

  • The competition is not typically offering more internal storage as a base than Apple so the Hand of the market isn't exactly imploring them to increase base storage. (yes I know some phones have 32GB base)

  • I would like the base storage to be increased as much as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is it isn't going to happen. It's too lucrative for Apple, and they aren't driven to do so."
 
Glideslope said:
This sums up Apple under Tim very well.

Fair Use Quote:
  • "Switching to a 16-64-128 scheme was genius on their part. It drove A LOT of people to the 64GB upgrade that would have otherwise picked the 32GB if it were the base model (me).

  • This allowed them to increase iPhone average selling price (ASP) and margin while essentially doing nothing. Investors ate it up.

  • The competition is not typically offering more internal storage as a base than Apple so the Hand of the market isn't exactly imploring them to increase base storage. (yes I know some phones have 32GB base)

  • I would like the base storage to be increased as much as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is it isn't going to happen. It's too lucrative for Apple, and they aren't driven to do so."
Click to expand...

I agree that this was a financially savvy move for Apple and great for shareholders, but it still strikes me as sleazy.

I took a quick look at New Egg.com and a 16GB Kingston USB3 memory stick costs $10, while the 32GB of the same type costs $15. In 2015 I think the cost of 32GB flash storage over 16GB for manufacturers is probably a lot less than the $5 difference, especially for a mega-bulk buyer like Apple.

If technology has advanced to the point where the 32GB cost is negligible, it seems mean spirited to keep the base device at 16GB. Apple obviously isn't in business to be nice, but they aren't in business to piss of customers either. 16GB was a bad experience for some iPhone 6/6+ users. Some of those people might go to competing products as a result.
 
adamhenry said:
I could never get by with 32G. The greedy jerks should give me 64G for the 16G price. People demanding a 32G base are ignoring those of us that need more than 32G. Pathetic!
Click to expand...

You are forgetting you got a storoge bump with the iphone 6 from 32gb to 64gb for same price. So your point is invalid you already got your sweets lets us get one too.
 
Glideslope said:
This sums up Apple under Tim very well.

Fair Use Quote:
  • "Switching to a 16-64-128 scheme was genius on their part. It drove A LOT of people to the 64GB upgrade that would have otherwise picked the 32GB if it were the base model (me).

  • This allowed them to increase iPhone average selling price (ASP) and margin while essentially doing nothing. Investors ate it up.

  • The competition is not typically offering more internal storage as a base than Apple so the Hand of the market isn't exactly imploring them to increase base storage. (yes I know some phones have 32GB base)

  • I would like the base storage to be increased as much as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is it isn't going to happen. It's too lucrative for Apple, and they aren't driven to do so."
Click to expand...

I agree with all your points, except for the competition not typically offering more internal base storage. Although it most likely has minimal impact, each of the competitors' flagship phones have 32GB base. This includes:

Galaxy S6 (all versions), Galaxy Note5/edge, HTC One M8 and M9, LG G3, LG G4, LG Flex2, Droid Turbo, Nexus 6....
In fact, it was actually harder for me to find 16GB base phones. I didn't see those until I dipped into the mid and low-end smart phones. The iPhone 6 and 6Plus were the only smartphones I could find that cost over $550, that didn't have 32GB base.

Also keep in mind that most of these phones had expandable storage as well. PLUS they get Google's free "unlimited" photo storage cloud service. Apple offers neither of these, and still has the lowest on-board storage.

Again, I know this doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. But it's just disappointing to me that the iPhone will be the last to follow the trend.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit
Retired Cat said:
I agree that this was a financially savvy move for Apple and great for shareholders, but it still strikes me as sleazy.

I took a quick look at New Egg.com and a 16GB Kingston USB3 memory stick costs $10, while the 32GB of the same type costs $15. In 2015 I think the cost of 32GB flash storage over 16GB for manufacturers is probably a lot less than the $5 difference, especially for a mega-bulk buyer like Apple.

If technology has advanced to the point where the 32GB cost is negligible, it seems mean spirited to keep the base device at 16GB. Apple obviously isn't in business to be nice, but they aren't in business to piss of customers either. 16GB was a bad experience for some iPhone 6/6+ users. Some of those people might go to competing products as a result.
Click to expand...

Absolutely sleazy. It's all about the shareholders now. Not inovation. Apple no longer innovates in house. They use their Billions to simply buy out others ideas. The people stay a while then get sick of the dogma and leave. Tim is a prostitute to the shareholders. I get it. It's just not what Apple should be IMO. When Steve died Apple lost it's Soul. Not much can be done. Apple has hooked those with deep pockets. I'd wager the next gen will be 16, 64, 128 as well. Tim is not going to change his ways in 180 days.

Just watch Apple hop in bed with the Military over the next few years. Steve never allowed participation in PRISIM. As soon as he passed Timmy was all in. Don't believe a word of his Encryption dogma. Tim has 2 very different sides. Sit back and look close for the one he hides. :apple:
 
This is one area where I think Apple customers were served better under Steve Jobs. Since the first iPod until the iPhone 3GS, Apple consistently bumped up the base storage every 1-2 generations (it tracked reasonably well with the actual cost of storage). Now apple is just trying to squeeze the extra $100 out of its customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgarjr
Camoxide said:
Doubt it. They'll do 32GB/128GB /256GB to encourage people to spend the extra $100.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was a genius plan and they're
Retired Cat said:
I agree that this was a financially savvy move for Apple and great for shareholders, but it still strikes me as sleazy.

I took a quick look at New Egg.com and a 16GB Kingston USB3 memory stick costs $10, while the 32GB of the same type costs $15. In 2015 I think the cost of 32GB flash storage over 16GB for manufacturers is probably a lot less than the $5 difference, especially for a mega-bulk buyer like Apple.

If technology has advanced to the point where the 32GB cost is negligible, it seems mean spirited to keep the base device at 16GB. Apple obviously isn't in business to be nice, but they aren't in business to piss of customers either. 16GB was a bad experience for some iPhone 6/6+ users. Some of those people might go to competing products as a result.
Click to expand...

Yeah it only cost like 10 bucks to double the storage flash, yet they still are charging $100. It has been $100 since 2007.
 
rgarjr said:
Yeah that was a genius plan and they're


Yeah it only cost like 10 bucks to double the storage flash, yet they still are charging $100. It has been $100 since 2007.
Click to expand...
But at least they bumped up the storage level a couple of times since then, but not for a while recently despite the components getting even cheaper now.
 
Glideslope said:
Just watch Apple hop in bed with the Military over the next few years. Steve never allowed participation in PRISIM. As soon as he passed Timmy was all in. Don't believe a word of his Encryption dogma. Tim has 2 very different sides. Sit back and look close for the one he hides. :apple:
Click to expand...

Some recommended reading for ya: http://daringfireball.net/2015/08/it_may_seem_silly

An excerpt:
So let’s get this straight: Jon Evans is deeply concerned about a hypothetical dystopic fantasy scenario where Apple turns a 180, abandons all of the privacy principles the company has adhered to for decades and has prominently promoted as a competitive advantage, and begins cooperating with the U.S. government to surveil iOS users.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back