If true, it's not surprising. Apple wants people to have "local storage" in their iCloud service or the other cloud subscription models. They consider base storage only for installation of apps.
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.
No 32GB iPhone 6s
- Thread starter Mitsjke
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure what market you're in, but here in the US, the IP6 only came in 16GB, 64GB and 128GB. I think the last 32GB model was the IP5S introduced in Sept '13. My wife has one of the 5S models with 16GB and it's more than she needs. If you want more, there is always the 64GB IP6 and soon to be, the IP6S.
And they will buy the capacity they need. Besides there is no more 32gb so they will get the 64gb for the price of the old 32gb. Good deal.
Flash memory is very cheap now. This wouldn't be a problem if the iPhone offered expandable storage via SD card.
16GB is an embarrassment right now for any smartphone.
Not everybody has unlimited data plans for cloud storage.
OK, let me evaluate.
If you think about it, going with 32/64/128 could well be more profitable. Yes, it would make less people pay the premium for 64GB, but it might make more people buy the top-tier phone rather than the mid-tier. Think about it. A 16GB iPhone 6 costs $649, and for $50 cheaper, you can buy a phone which is essentially a smaller 6 with a couple of features removed, and has double the storage. Even if they went with 32/64 with the mid-tier phones, this could still work, as most people use under 32GB storage. But even if it is a bit less profitable, aren't
about putting the consumer first?
If you think about it, going with 32/64/128 could well be more profitable. Yes, it would make less people pay the premium for 64GB, but it might make more people buy the top-tier phone rather than the mid-tier. Think about it. A 16GB iPhone 6 costs $649, and for $50 cheaper, you can buy a phone which is essentially a smaller 6 with a couple of features removed, and has double the storage. Even if they went with 32/64 with the mid-tier phones, this could still work, as most people use under 32GB storage. But even if it is a bit less profitable, aren't
about putting the consumer first?Like it was pointed out Apple reduced the price of the 64gb last year. Buying the higher capacity is a better deal, unless for those that don't need it, and those people will happily settle for the 16gb.
Thank you , however I have already read both Gruber, and Evans article. While seeming distant, only a fool would pretend that John Gruber is not a Tim/Apple defender.
Tim will do what it takes to maintain the margins, and dividends to shareholders. I believe the most frequently used phrase is, "at all costs."
Of course Mr. Gruber is a proponent of Apple, but he isn't a mindless mouthpiece or shill.Thank you , however I have already read both Gruber, and Evans article. While seeming distant, only a fool would pretend that John Gruber is not a Tim/Apple defender.
Tim will do what it takes to maintain the margins, and dividends to shareholders. I believe the most frequently used phrase is, "at all costs."
In my opinion, the assertion is sound: Apple has built its reputation and business on privacy, and it has far more to lose than gain by sacrificing that. I believe you are right in that Apple does answer to shareholders, so why would Apple risk that by compromising customer privacy and company values to appease government agencies?
To me, that makes for less sense (and cents) than the contrary conspiracy-theorist assertions do.
That's a real bummer. Really have to replace my 4s and while 16gb was ok back then for me, it's not sufficent anymore as I want to have much more music on it. And I mean actual music files - not streaming. Pity is, that I'm doing not much more than some very minor browsing besides the usual texting and...eh..phoning - so no good excuse to get an apple device either. Other than itunes connectability.
Paying 800€ for a phone that will be almost obsolete for me in only a couple of years (like the 4s is now) isn't something I want to get accustomed to. Pity that it seems (on the surface at least, haven't dug too deep) to be quite a hit and miss with itune's libraries on non-apple phones. Paying almose less than half of what an iphone costs for more than double the space I could have (extra sd-storage) sounds almost too good to pass on.
Paying 800€ for a phone that will be almost obsolete for me in only a couple of years (like the 4s is now) isn't something I want to get accustomed to. Pity that it seems (on the surface at least, haven't dug too deep) to be quite a hit and miss with itune's libraries on non-apple phones. Paying almose less than half of what an iphone costs for more than double the space I could have (extra sd-storage) sounds almost too good to pass on.
If I remember correct they although "reduced" the price of the 128GB version by introducing it with the price of the previous 64GB version.
So all versions except 16GB have been reduced in price. I think more people would go by a 16GB iPhone, if the price dropped $100 as well.
Not everyone saves photos or music to the cloud. And even if one has a unlimited data pass these additional data costs battery life.
Well, we will need to watch the process evolve. No, Gruber is not a mindless mouthpiece, or shill. However, he does write commentary with input from Apple. If you don't see that then I can offer nothing in return.
Evans comments can easily bee seen as conspiracy fodder. However, the lack of trust I have in todays Apple doing the correct thing behind it's "Great Wall of Secrecy" leaves enough room for me to partially agree with him. It may not be 180 degrees, but 90 would be very easy for Tim to live with.
There is good reason why Steve never participated in PRISM. There is the fact that Tim joined PRISM the day after becoming CEO. He could have at least waited to Steve to pass. However, that's not the real Tim.
Apple no longer has a Soul. It does portray a nice self image through it's race/gender base advertising these days. If you work behind the "Great Wall" however. Life's a Bitch.
"Better deal" is a term that should be used extremely loosely. Paying $100 for a 48GB jump in flash storage is actually a horrible deal. Sure, it's technically a better deal than what we were getting prior to the 6, but that's really not saying much at all.
I never did agree with the industry's mindset of charging $100 premiums for such low increases in storage. But that's business I guess.
I wish the iPhone I want to as sold for $500, but it's not. It's either I buy it or not.
Err, yeah. I wasn't arguing against that. I was just stating my dissatisfaction with the insane markups they have by giving us small incremental upgrades in storage.
That's why I won't be buying the 6s if the base remains 16GB. I personally can't support that anymore.
The 16 GB model remained the 16 GB model, while the 32 GB model basically got replaced by the 64 GB model (and 128 GB replaced 64 GB).
It's more like Apple wanted to raise the price of their phones, so $750 for 64GB is the actual iPhone price. $649 will get you a stunted version of the phone.
Actually $750 for the 64gb iPhone 6 was a price drop. So they actually dropped the prices.