this is one reason why the 6c should have at least a 64gb option. i'd buy it. if it had the thicker, better battery design. heck id buy it even if it didnt have touch id but had similar specs to the 6 with a better battery and a thicker shell.
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.
Phil Schiller Talks 16 GB iPhones and Thinness vs Battery Life Tradeoffs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is priceless.
I've been buying iPhones since 2008 and it's the only smartphone I've ever had. Each model was always a 16 GB model and storage started becoming an issue so last October I bought the 128 GB 6+ while my wife got the 16 GB 6. I have a ton of movies, a lot of them in HD, apps and music that I got tired of connecting to the computer every day. My wife works from home so she gets by with hers just fine. I also figured we want to take more photos so we'd make mine the go to camera for photos and we will need the space.
Having owned 16 GB before, I can see where this base model issue is absurd, it absolutely should be a 32 GB base option for the same price. Alone, they tought the amazing HD display which I want to use. That requires HD content. HD files are larger. They take up a lot of space. For me, I don't trust the cloud and you need an Internet connection which is not always reliable and even then, do I want to be waiting to download one movie? I have Sprint, while unlimited is anything but reliable. No way am I going to the cloud. I like my content available to me right away, right on my device. The cloud poses problems and Phil is thinking everyone out there has fast, issue free internet and everything is just downloaded in mins without incident. This could not be farther from the truth... For some it works and if so great, but for others and I'm banking that it's a lot of us, we need more storage. These movies and apps won't get any smaller any time soon. Sure, some get by with 16 GB still and that's fine.
From a business standpoint, they want you to buy cloud storage which means more money for them and plus, if they had a 32 GB option as the base line model what is the incentive to buy the 64? Not as great I would imagine and as a result they'd suffer poorer sales because of more people turning to the 32 GB base. Apple is doing what it wants. Why? Because they can. Because people buy their products, like myself. Look at what they have done in the last 10 years.... While I certainly understand the frustration and pure greed ( why a company that has almost 200 billion in the bank is talking about saving money is beyond me) it is what it is. And sadly I don't see Apple changing its ways any time soon....
I've been buying iPhones since 2008 and it's the only smartphone I've ever had. Each model was always a 16 GB model and storage started becoming an issue so last October I bought the 128 GB 6+ while my wife got the 16 GB 6. I have a ton of movies, a lot of them in HD, apps and music that I got tired of connecting to the computer every day. My wife works from home so she gets by with hers just fine. I also figured we want to take more photos so we'd make mine the go to camera for photos and we will need the space.
Having owned 16 GB before, I can see where this base model issue is absurd, it absolutely should be a 32 GB base option for the same price. Alone, they tought the amazing HD display which I want to use. That requires HD content. HD files are larger. They take up a lot of space. For me, I don't trust the cloud and you need an Internet connection which is not always reliable and even then, do I want to be waiting to download one movie? I have Sprint, while unlimited is anything but reliable. No way am I going to the cloud. I like my content available to me right away, right on my device. The cloud poses problems and Phil is thinking everyone out there has fast, issue free internet and everything is just downloaded in mins without incident. This could not be farther from the truth... For some it works and if so great, but for others and I'm banking that it's a lot of us, we need more storage. These movies and apps won't get any smaller any time soon. Sure, some get by with 16 GB still and that's fine.
From a business standpoint, they want you to buy cloud storage which means more money for them and plus, if they had a 32 GB option as the base line model what is the incentive to buy the 64? Not as great I would imagine and as a result they'd suffer poorer sales because of more people turning to the 32 GB base. Apple is doing what it wants. Why? Because they can. Because people buy their products, like myself. Look at what they have done in the last 10 years.... While I certainly understand the frustration and pure greed ( why a company that has almost 200 billion in the bank is talking about saving money is beyond me) it is what it is. And sadly I don't see Apple changing its ways any time soon....
I'm not obsessed with thinness. I was happy with the thickness of the original iPhone. I'm also happy with the dimensions of my iPhone 6.
So basically people realize that crying "I want more for less" will be obvious and ineffective so they instead argue that the current product is unusable and part of an elaborate conspiracy and that they can't buy the device that suits them because it feeds right into Apple's evil plan?
Maybe so. The arguments are rather tortured though.
I wonder what the alternate universe where Apple made the bottom end 32GB and $50 more would look like. "I don't need all that space and wish Apple would release a 16GB version for people who want a cheaper phone"?
It still amazes me that there are people willing to defend Apple on their greediness. And it amazes me that Apple is so arrogant in their pricing and specs.
Schiller is talking about using 16GB storage that let's them use better camera etc internals... Really? Does he mean the camera, the display or maybe RAM? All that BS while Samsung surpassed them in the camera department. It's great their using better components, but Samsung now offers more megapixels and better quality photos while giving 32GB storage in the lowest model. It's pricy, of course, but at least Samsung has some grounds to be priced the way it is - compared to the iPhone. Meanwhile the iPhone has been using 8 megapixels camera for how long now?
And why exactly is it that they didn't make a camera like the new Galaxy S6? What benefit as a customer do I get from having worse camera than it would've been possible to get? And the display? While it's not bad it's just so far behind competition it's embarrassing (Galaxy: QHD '2K' Super AMOLED, 577ppi, 536 nits brightness - http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/samsung-galaxy-s6-vs-iphone-6#PKEgwVqiJj4idif6.99.)
Now if that 750p (sic!) display in Phone 6 would've given me some extreme battery life than sure, I could agree with Schiller, but it's not the case. Obviously the argument "why would anyone need such a high density display on a phone?" is valid, but isn't Apple talking about being bold? There's nothing bold (in the sense that Schiller is implying) in asking 540 GBP for a phone that so far behind a 550 GBP phone. Honestly, from all of my years of using electronic I'd not once had the problem with having too good specs... I didn't say; "I don't need the DVD, because I was doing just fine with VHS" or "I don't need the Retina display, the old VGA resolution was doing me just fine...
Although peterdevries and others have a point... we should vote with our wallets. I should've opted for a HTC or waited for S6, instead of getting the 128GB iPhone 6, which by the way got bent in breadth after like 2 months with Apple declining replacement/fix. I got myself to blame. Next time I'm changing phones I will be opting for an Android (it has made way bigger advancements over the last 2 years, it's become almost not ugly even
and iPhone will have to be really competitive if they want my money in 2-3 years.
No more giving Apple my money by default.
Schiller is talking about using 16GB storage that let's them use better camera etc internals... Really? Does he mean the camera, the display or maybe RAM? All that BS while Samsung surpassed them in the camera department. It's great their using better components, but Samsung now offers more megapixels and better quality photos while giving 32GB storage in the lowest model. It's pricy, of course, but at least Samsung has some grounds to be priced the way it is - compared to the iPhone. Meanwhile the iPhone has been using 8 megapixels camera for how long now?
And why exactly is it that they didn't make a camera like the new Galaxy S6? What benefit as a customer do I get from having worse camera than it would've been possible to get? And the display? While it's not bad it's just so far behind competition it's embarrassing (Galaxy: QHD '2K' Super AMOLED, 577ppi, 536 nits brightness - http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/samsung-galaxy-s6-vs-iphone-6#PKEgwVqiJj4idif6.99.)
Now if that 750p (sic!) display in Phone 6 would've given me some extreme battery life than sure, I could agree with Schiller, but it's not the case. Obviously the argument "why would anyone need such a high density display on a phone?" is valid, but isn't Apple talking about being bold? There's nothing bold (in the sense that Schiller is implying) in asking 540 GBP for a phone that so far behind a 550 GBP phone. Honestly, from all of my years of using electronic I'd not once had the problem with having too good specs... I didn't say; "I don't need the DVD, because I was doing just fine with VHS" or "I don't need the Retina display, the old VGA resolution was doing me just fine...
Although peterdevries and others have a point... we should vote with our wallets. I should've opted for a HTC or waited for S6, instead of getting the 128GB iPhone 6, which by the way got bent in breadth after like 2 months with Apple declining replacement/fix. I got myself to blame. Next time I'm changing phones I will be opting for an Android (it has made way bigger advancements over the last 2 years, it's become almost not ugly even
and iPhone will have to be really competitive if they want my money in 2-3 years.No more giving Apple my money by default.
I smell BS on the the reasoning for keeping 16gb around. Every other phone manufacturer has up their baseline storage to 32gb. 16gb is laughable, even with cloud storage.
I have 1tb of one drive storage but I still need my local storage for pictures, music and apps which is why i went with the 64gb model.otherwise i would have gone with 32gb
It's 2015 16gb isn't enough for the average user. Apple should just fess up they want more money instead of giving these BS excuses about cloud storage.
I have 1tb of one drive storage but I still need my local storage for pictures, music and apps which is why i went with the 64gb model.otherwise i would have gone with 32gb
It's 2015 16gb isn't enough for the average user. Apple should just fess up they want more money instead of giving these BS excuses about cloud storage.
I'm a bit confused. Why do you think the 16Gb phones are always immediately sold out after a new iPhone was introduced? It seems the average user is quite fine with it. Maybe you and most people here are not average users, ever thought about that?
Again, I would be fine with a 32Gb entry size for the iPhone at the current 16Gb price. But it is clear that there are millions of people that apparently are very comfortable with the 16Gb size. Who are they? Businesses (also the reason why the 8Gb 5C actually did fine), <15 year olds and >35 year olds (of course there are exceptions, I'm one of them). My cousins that are young teenagers all have 16Gb iPhones and are totally fine with them.
In addition, the reasoning by Schiller is not completely off. A 200Gb subscription is about $4 /month (~$100 per two years), making it in price equivalent to an upgrade to 32Gb. I use iCloud myself and it is pretty awesome. I have access to 80.000 photos and 2000 videos on my iPhone, with all my apps present and enough room to spare for a few movies.
I know with iphone 6, the 16 gb sold out because the 64 and 128gb were gone. I know a lot of people who winded up getting the 16gb because they were impatient and didn't want to wait for their store/carrier to get new shipments. Then you have that crowd that buys the 16gb simply because it is cheaper, but then you see them constantly deleting stuff off of their phone because it runs out of space.
They sold millions of iPhone 6 and 6+.
As a professional I'm very happy since the install base is huge and is really a great time to be an iOS developer, but as a consumer I don't feel the same.
The more iPhone they sell the more they can get away with these pathetic excuses for storage, battery life and so on.
Business is great, so why should they lower the prices or give more specs in the entry model?
I'll continue to buy Apple products, first of all since I need them to work and second because I really like their products, but I sure hope they'll get some tough competition from Android and WP that will force them to continue to innovate and be more competitive, at least on the specs
Sorry, but that is just an assumption. If that were the case they would have stopped selling 16gb as soon as supply of the others picked up. Since Apple still sells the 16gb now, it proves that your statement is false.
Sure there are people that did and do that. But I know many people that have no issues at all. So this must mean that neither your or my views of the behaviour of 16gb owners is representative for the entire market.
The only thing that you CAN conclude is that Apple still sells 16gb iphones and is not forcing anyone to buy them. This must mean that there are many people and businesses that are apparently quite happy with 16gb. I´m not, so I bought a 128 gb version. Of course I would like to pay less for it, but I don´t see any reason why I should complain to a company about not offering a cheaper product, even if the competition does offer it cheaper. Why is that suddenly justified because it is Apple? I don´t see people complaining to BMW because their navigation package has a profit margin of about 500%. Nor have I ever seen anyone walking into a supermarket and demanding similar prices for vegetables as they get directly from the farm.
Last edited:
i must say i cannot see how you figure out that if his theory is correct that they would have stopped selling the 16 gig.
the be all and end all line "nobody forced". the simple fact is that while nobody is forced to buy an iphone it is the most desirable phone. how forced that makes people feel would ben an interesting discussion. obviously you are free to buy whatever configuration you want but for a large group of people their hands are severely tied for financial reasons. then you can add in apples horrendous ota downloads and the space it gobbles up.
sadly i dont get the relevance of a bmw navigation package or vegetables. are they as outdated as 16 gig is today? it is not about paying less per se but moving with the times and not playing used car tricks on the most loyal customers around.
Well, yeah, people want more for less but we aren't talking a lot of money here that Apple would have to fork out. Storage is super cheap these days and it'd cost them pennies per device to give us the 32GB base storage option. It's not like we are asking that they sell us these device for $50 bucks outright or something. People will pay top dollar for top quality devices but the nickel and dimeing does start to get tedious. Like the cellular iPad upcharge that's $130 bucks instead of $100. It's like.... Cmon man.
does ios9 optimisation reduce the size of the ever improving/increasing pictures, increasing app sizes, music library?
i would say for a large portion of those who 16 gig is enough for 8 gig probably is as well but it does impose severe limitations. i used an 8 gig iphone for about 7 years.
I download a lot of offline spotify tracks on my 'droid so when I get the new iphone in sept* I'll need a minimum of 32gb.
*Assumptions based on previous product cycle.
*Assumptions based on previous product cycle.
why $50 more? with a firm price structure apple (and the industry) loses in the beginning when it offers more expensive parts but apple at least rarely decreases the price when components get cheaper ie the 16 gig chip.
and why not 4 or 8 instead of 16? you can play this game forever.
for the iphone (not c) apple discontinued the 4 gig in 2007 and the 8 gig in 2012. its not about wanting more for less its about moving ahead and for the leading tech company its embarrassing.
what argument for discontinuing the
Picked up a Verizon 1st gen Moto G 8GB. What an amazing device for $25 that it makes both Galaxy S6 and iPhone 6 look like rip offs. While not as advanced as the S6 the Moto G screen quality is the same as iPhone 6 while being more compact and better feeling with curved soft back in-hand. Moto G even has built-in FM radio tuner that the others don't. It's changed the way I look at phones.
Actually look at one before you disagree. It looks like a JDI (Japan Display Inc) panel which is the same company Apple partnered with and one of the suppliers for iPhone 6 display.
im sure its a nice device. but you quoted my post regarding 4 and 8 gigs for iphones and your response revolves around the merits of a low budget device from 2013.
You're inexperienced set of eyes doesn't make your statement true. Technologically, they are not on the same level, sorry.
You haven't even seen one. I've seen both and they're nearly identical if not the same. For example, they're both 326ppi.
Last edited: