No 32GB iPhone 6s

[willmtaylor]

Well, we will need to watch the process evolve.

Agreed, but running off with assumptions that run completely contrary to most of a company's actions and values seems a bit alarmist.

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.

Of course.

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.

I don't pretend to know what goes on at inside Apple's, but perhaps that's what separates us. I think it's fundamentally flawed to assume that a private company which protects itself has something to hide, just as it's flawed to assume that a company which masquerades as "open" isn't hiding anything.

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.

Two things strike me here: 1. That you think Steve Jobs didn't know Tim. 2. That you think you do.

If you work behind the "Great Wall" however. Life's a Bitch.

And you know this personally?

 

[Glideslope]

Agreed, but running off with assumptions that run completely contrary to most of a company's actions and values seems a bit alarmist.


Of course.


I don't pretend to know what goes on at inside Apple's, but perhaps that's what separates us. I think it's fundamentally flawed to assume that a private company which protects itself has something to hide, just as it's flawed to assume that a company which masquerades as "open" isn't hiding anything.


Two things strike me here: 1. That you think Steve Jobs didn't know Tim. 2. That you think you do.


And you know this personally?

Have a nice day.

 

[willmtaylor]

Have a nice day.

Thanks. Please do the same.

 

[Merkie]

Actually $750 for the 64gb iPhone 6 was a price drop. So they actually dropped the prices.

Both assumptions are both true and false. What really matters (in the end) is ASP and margins. Both ASP and margins have gone up.

 

[Brian Y]

If you look at the average iPhone user (not people on here obviously), they probably wouldn't use half of that 16GB storage.

 

[terraphantm]

If you look at the average iPhone user (not people on here obviously), they probably wouldn't use half of that 16GB storage.

That might have been true back when 16gb became base. Now with the 8MP photos, 1080p videos, and much larger apps, I highly doubt anyone except business customers are using that little space

 

[617aircav]

That might have been true back when 16gb became base. Now with the 8MP photos, 1080p videos, and much larger apps, I highly doubt anyone except business customers are using that little space

I'm sure Apple has done their research on what capacities to offer. A lot of people will take $100 back in their pocket over an extra 16gb. Some people find 32gb too small, I find it adequate. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[terraphantm]

I'm sure Apple has done their research on what capacities to offer. A lot of people will take $100 back in their pocket over an extra 16gb. Some people find 32gb too small, I find it adequate. Different strokes for different folks.

Apple did do their research. By limiting the base to 16gb, they milk the extra $100 out of a large chunk of their userbase who would otherwise be okay with 32gb. There is no other reason 16gb is still base

 

[JohnApples]

Apple did do their research. By limiting the base to 16gb, they milk the extra $100 out of a large chunk of their userbase who would otherwise be okay with 32gb. There is no other reason 16gb is still base

Agreed. Apple is not releasing a 16GB to make light users happy. That doesn't make any sense. Giving them 32GB (like all the other flagship phones) would not hurt them.

It's nothing more than to up sell to the 64GB by making it look more enticing. Notice how many people say "you're now getting twice the storage for the same price!"? It's working beautifully.

Also, think of it like a carrier's data plan. If you get a hard limit, you tend to use less data because you can't go over the limit. If you have more, you tend to be less strict about your usage and do more. It's the same concept with storage. People with 16GB phones may not fill up their phones because they purposely limit themselves. Who knows.

 

[Girder_Shade]

I really hope Apple deliver next week with the new iPhone. I'm really hoping to switch from Android but if they disappoint I may have to stay another year until the iPhone 7 in 2016.

Sony just announced their new Xperia Z5 smartphone with a 5.5" 4k display, brand new 23MP camera with world's fastest auto focus, waterproof, 32GB base storage with SD card support up to 200GB and 2 days battery life with fast charge support.
The temptation is strong... Apple please deliver!!!

 

[OceanView]

Guess I gotta wait another year to consider coming back to iOS.

 

[Brian Y]

Apple did do their research. By limiting the base to 16gb, they milk the extra $100 out of a large chunk of their userbase who would otherwise be okay with 32gb. There is no other reason 16gb is still base

Well you're wrong on two fronts.

First of all, if the base was 16GB this would increase the cost of the phone slightly, so the price would probably increase for those who don't need more than 16GB. Would you still be saying that is fair if you were one of them?

Secondly, I don't know about global sales figures, but for the sales figures I've seen locally, the 16GB is by far the most popular model.

 

[JohnApples]

Well you're wrong on two fronts.

First of all, if the base was 16GB this would increase the cost of the phone slightly, so the price would probably increase for those who don't need more than 16GB. Would you still be saying that is fair if you were one of them?

Secondly, I don't know about global sales figures, but for the sales figures I've seen locally, the 16GB is by far the most popular model.

Actually, you're wrong on the first part. Apple doubled the 32GB model AND the 64GB (to 64 and 128 respectively) and didn't increase the price. Why would they suddenly increase the price when doubling the 16GB model? The price, while technically more, is so minuscule, they wouldn't raise the base price. Otherwise, they would have rose the prices for the other models too, which they did not. They literally showed that doubling the storage was financially feasible.

16GB is the most popular because it is the cheapest. If 32GB was base, it would also be the most popular.

 

[617aircav]

Actually, you're wrong on the first part. Apple doubled the 32GB model AND the 64GB (to 64 and 128 respectively) and didn't increase the price. Why would they suddenly increase the price when doubling the 16GB model? The price, while technically more, is so minuscule, they wouldn't raise the base price. Otherwise, they would have rose the prices for the other models too, which they did not. They literally showed that doubling the storage was financially feasible.

16GB is the most popular because it is the cheapest. If 32GB was base, it would also be the most popular.

What the popularity of the 16gb tells me is that most people are ok with 16gb. I am not so I went for 64gb.

 

[JohnApples]

What the popularity of the 16gb tells me is that most people are ok with 16gb. I am not so I went for 64gb.

Or that they don't see the $100 additional premium for more storage as worth it. We really don't know because I don't think a true survey about peoples' opinions on the 16GB model has ever been taken.

I just think that for a premium, flagship, very expensive phone, the least they could do is match the base storage as their competitors. Again, bumping the base to 32GB would not hurt light users. They just get even more storage.

 

[Brian Y]

Or that they don't see the $100 additional premium for more storage as worth it. We really don't know because I don't think a true survey about peoples' opinions on the 16GB model has ever been taken.

I just think that for a premium, flagship, very expensive phone, the least they could do is match the base storage as their competitors. Again, bumping the base to 32GB would not hurt light users. They just get even more storage.

But in economies of scale, say that 16GB -> 32GB costs what, $5 in reality. The website I just looked at estimates Apple sold 220m iPhones in the past year. From experience, at least 50% of those will be the base model. That's 110M iPhones, at $5 each - resulting in an increased cost to Apple of $550M. That "least thing they could do" would actually cost them half a billion dollars.

Would you spend half a billion dollars if you didn't need to?

As for "purposely limiting themselves" - ask most people who own an iPhone what a GB is, or how to check how much free space they have on their phone, they probably wouldn't know. The way most people decide is "I had a 16GB last time, and I didn't run out, so I should get 16GB again".

 

[JohnApples]

But in economies of scale, say that 16GB -> 32GB costs what, $5 in reality. The website I just looked at estimates Apple sold 220m iPhones in the past year. From experience, at least 50% of those will be the base model. That's 110M iPhones, at $5 each - resulting in an increased cost to Apple of $550M. That "least thing they could do" would actually cost them half a billion dollars.

Would you spend half a billion dollars if you didn't need to?

Oh I get why they won't bump the base up to 32GB. I know that they're actually saving a good chunk of change by doing it this way. I understand it from a business perspective.

But I do NOT agree with it from a consumer perspective. And since I'm a consumer, I'll continue to hold my stance on what's best for consumers, not what's best for Apple.

 

[617aircav]

Or that they don't see the $100 additional premium for more storage as worth it. We really don't know because I don't think a true survey about peoples' opinions on the 16GB model has ever been taken.

I just think that for a premium, flagship, very expensive phone, the least they could do is match the base storage as their competitors. Again, bumping the base to 32GB would not hurt light users. They just get even more storage.

They bumped the 32gb to 64gb which made those consumers very happy. That's was a nice price drop. Usually the more you buy, the less you pay.

 

[JohnApples]

They bumped the 32gb to 64gb which made those consumers very happy. That's was a nice price drop. Usually the more you buy, the less you pay.

Yes. They bumped to 32GB to 64GB and bumped the previous 64GB to 128GB. My point is that they proved that they were capable and ready to double up the storage, but they purposely left the 16GB out to maximize profit and up-sell to the "good deal" 64GB.

 

[617aircav]

Yes. They bumped to 32GB to 64GB and bumped the previous 64GB to 128GB. My point is that they proved that they were capable and ready to double up the storage, but they purposely left the 16GB out to maximize profit and up-sell to the "good deal" 64GB.

This is what a business does. I am also sure plenty people are ok with 16gb, thus a lot of them buy it.

 

[pokerplayer73]

But in economies of scale, say that 16GB -> 32GB costs what, $5 in reality. The website I just looked at estimates Apple sold 220m iPhones in the past year. From experience, at least 50% of those will be the base model. That's 110M iPhones, at $5 each - resulting in an increased cost to Apple of $550M. That "least thing they could do" would actually cost them half a billion dollars.

Would you spend half a billion dollars if you didn't need to?

As for "purposely limiting themselves" - ask most people who own an iPhone what a GB is, or how to check how much free space they have on their phone, they probably wouldn't know. The way most people decide is "I had a 16GB last time, and I didn't run out, so I should get 16GB again".

Its not just $550M. Of the rest 110M iPhones, half would choose 32Gb instead of 64 GB. loss of 55M * $100 = additional $5.5 B . Total loss = $6B

EDIT: Considering Apple sells that many in an year. $6B spread over an year. Not much for Apple.

 

[JohnApples]

This is what a business does. I am also sure plenty people are ok with 16gb, thus a lot of them buy it.

I addressed that a few posts above. Again, I know why they're doing it, but I don't agree with it. I am a consumer, so I will not defend a business decision that I do not view as fair.

All the other flagship phone makers offer 32GB base and have been. Apple is resisting this and getting away with it, because they can.

 

[Brian Y]

I addressed that a few posts above. Again, I know why they're doing it, but I don't agree with it. I am a consumer, so I will not defend a business decision that I do not view as fair.

But why isn't it fair? Just because you want more storage?

Do you also moan about how Ford sell engines with different power outputs, and it's unfair because if you want the faster one you have to pay more?

Or the same argument with MacBooks? and how 128GB isn't enough for me, and it costs £200 to go from 128GB to 256GB (even though you can buy a 500GB AND an additional 250GB SSD separately for those prices?).

And not all new phones come with 32GB as standard. The new OnePlus Two has a 16GB base model.

Yeah it would be nice if all phones came with lots of storage, but business is a balancing game. The money they would lose from upping the base level would be found elsewhere - a cheaper other component, less money spent on the camera, or a price increase across the board.

Yeah it might only cost a few dollars and you pay a hundred for it. But how much profit do you think everyone makes on optional extras. Those watch straps certainly don't cost over £100. And I'm sure as hell the satnav/radio I paid £500 for in my car probably cost about £50 to make. It's how it is - the higher profit margins on the bigger models offset lower costs on the smaller ones, thus allowing more phones to be sold.

 

[JohnApples]

But why isn't it fair? Just because you want more storage?

Do you also moan about how Ford sell engines with different power outputs, and it's unfair because if you want the faster one you have to pay more?

Or the same argument with MacBooks? and how 128GB isn't enough for me, and it costs £200 to go from 128GB to 256GB (even though you can buy a 500GB AND an additional 250GB SSD separately for those prices?).

And not all new phones come with 32GB as standard. The new OnePlus Two has a 16GB base model.

Yeah it would be nice if all phones came with lots of storage, but business is a balancing game. The money they would lose from upping the base level would be found elsewhere - a cheaper other component, less money spent on the camera, or a price increase across the board.

Yeah it might only cost a few dollars and you pay a hundred for it. But how much profit do you think everyone makes on optional extras. Those watch straps certainly don't cost over £100. And I'm sure as hell the satnav/radio I paid £500 for in my car probably cost about £50 to make. It's how it is - the higher profit margins on the bigger models offset lower costs on the smaller ones, thus allowing more phones to be sold.

It's not about just the fact that I want more storage, but more about the principle of the thing. When the industry moves forward and you purposely stay behind, I don't view that as fair to the consumer.

There's no need to use derogatory statements like "do you moan..." Let's keep this as a mature debate please. Comparing phones to car engines is irrelevant in my opinion. We're talking about cheap storage here, not engines. Keep in mind that paying $100 more for a small bump in storage doesn't give you more power, like paying for for a better engine would. But again, that's besides the point and difficult to compare.

I also don't agree with the MacBook pricing structure.

The OnePlus Two is roughly $200-$300 less than the iPhone 6. I was comparing other phones priced the same.

I don't agree that if they bumped the base storage up to 32GB, that we would suddenly find less impressive upgrades. Again, the other companies have been able to do it with awesome pone features, and Apple again doubled the storage themselves. We just have no way of knowing. Besides, what's the point of upping those features if the 16GB model is supposedly meant for those who don't really use them anyway?

 

[617aircav]

It's not about just the fact that I want more storage, but more about the principle of the thing. When the industry moves forward and you purposely stay behind, I don't view that as fair to the consumer.

There's no need to use derogatory statements like "do you moan..." Let's keep this as a mature debate please. Comparing phones to car engines is irrelevant in my opinion. We're talking about cheap storage here, not engines. Keep in mind that paying $100 more for a small bump in storage doesn't give you more power, like paying for for a better engine would. But again, that's besides the point and difficult to compare.

I also don't agree with the MacBook pricing structure.

The OnePlus Two is roughly $200-$300 less than the iPhone 6. I was comparing other phones priced the same.

I don't agree that if they bumped the base storage up to 32GB, that we would suddenly find less impressive upgrades. Again, the other companies have been able to do it with awesome pone features, and Apple again doubled the storage themselves. We just have no way of knowing. Besides, what's the point of upping those features if the 16GB model is supposedly meant for those who don't really use them anyway?

What does this have to do with principles? Nobody is forced to buy 16gb, it's a choice they make. Apple chose to discount the 64gb and the 128gb b cause they wanted to. Nobody was even expecting that. The decided to keep the 16gb as the base because they wanted to. Has nothing to do with what others do.