Knowing Apple they will do something like 16,128,256.
And people will still buy the 16 in large quantities to save $100.
And people will still buy the 16 in large quantities to save $100.
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.
Think iPhone 7 would go 32/128?
- Thread starter bniu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They'll probably stay with the 16/64/128GB options, but I do sincerely hope they stop charging $100 for each storage space bump. You're not fooling anyone into thinking that's what it costs to bump up the storage. Hell, the iPod Touch got a price cut to $50 per upgrade (unless you went with the 128GB model which is a $100 price increase over the 64GB model), there's no reason other than making more money to give the iPhone that treatment too.
I really hope they offer a 256gb version. I hope that 4K60 comes next year to take advantage of this. In regards to tiers 32/128/256 makes sense. Same difference between 16-64 vs 32 -128.
How about 32 / 128 / 512 I would probably get the large size would be nice to have that much storage on it.
I'm thinking they'll do 32/128/256 or 32/64/128. I think they really have to bump the base model to 32 for the 7. It's long overdue, kind of like when they increased the screen size with the 6.
I think they meant its scummy because its a cash grab, not based on what people need or not.
If you need more then 16gb you are forced to pay at least 100 dollars more.
If you don't need more then 16gb you are force to overpay for nothing.
Pick your poison.
Its very clear what Apple is doing. If 32gb was the base model I'd venture a guess you'd see a MASSIVE reduction is 64gb sales (I wouldn't have bought one). Since this doesn't benefit the consumer in any way what so ever its not stretch for someone to say its a "scummy business tactic". But then again, is there any business tactic that a consumer couldn't call scummy? Probably not...
Apples tactic has more incentive too. Get enough people using 64gb for long enough and they wouldn't be able to go back to anything less without some work. So if Apple went 32/128/xxx then 64gb users could be forced into paying that additional 100 for the 128gb model.
And what's next? If Apple offers a 32gb base model and I need more, is Apple being scummy for not offering 64gb as the base model and forcing me to pay $100 more for the next tier?
Where does it end?
By your definition, everything could be considered a scummy cash grab if the company in question could in theory have offered a better deal.
Is Macdonalds trying to milk me for profit by offering the option to upsize my meal, rather than simply serving me the upsized meal at the original price? The extra fries and coke obviously costs less than the extra money I pay, right?
As it stands now, anyone who opts for a 64gb model is better off than 2 years ago, where for the same price, they would have gotten only the 32gb model. It's a benefit however I see it. Maybe it's not the benefit you wanted, but it's a benefit nonetheless.
I simply pretend the 16gb model doesn't exist and treat the 64gb model as the true entry level flagship.
It ends there, at least for now. It's about them keeping tech up with the times. 32GB is now more than feasible to put in a base model, as literally every other flagship phone that's the same price as iPhone, is now doing. 32GB probably costs the same or less than 16GB did when that was first introduced as a base model.
Nobody is asking for hundreds of GB of storage here, just a modest bump. They bumped up the middle tier (32GB to 64GB) and upper tier (64GB to 128GB) no problem at all, so they proved that they're more than capable of doing it. It's very, very clear it's nothing more than a way to increase profit margins and to make the jump to 64GB more appetizing. And yes, I know, they're a business. That's what they do. And it's successfully working for them. There's nothing inherently "wrong" about it, but many of us simply don't agree with it.
I see the point you're trying to make, but it's very difficult to compare food to tech. When tech advances, it also gets cheaper down the line. Those cheaper components usually benefit the consumer with cheaper prices. A terabyte hard drive is a lot cheaper than it was 4 years ago. A 1080p TV is a lot cheaper than it was 5 years ago. And so on and so forth.
A slightly better (though still inaccurate, I think) comparison would be if McDonalds offered 3 different meal sizes for, say, a burger/fry/drink combo. Small, medium, and large. Over time, prices go down for what it costs McDonalds to make that combo. Eventually, because they can afford to do so, they double the amount of burger, fry, and drink you get with the combo, for the same price. Except, ONLY the medium and large sizes get twice the food. The small still has the original amount. It's a clever business model to not only maximize profit, but also entice customers to upgrade even more. Again, it wouldn't be "Wrong", but we can still think of it as scummy.
Yes, previous 32GB and 64GB users benefit, but 16GB users do not. If 32GB and 64GB users now get twice the storage than they used to 2 years ago, why can't 16GB users? Well, you know the answer.
Which would be true if nothing else changed in the new iPhone.
I see it as one giant package deal. All the improvements cost money, from the new aluminium materials to the force touch sensors to the Taptic Engine to improved camera to faster processors and all. Heck, even the flash storage used is faster. These might be partly offset by other factors like cheaper component costs and the recycled form factor leading to savings in R&D and more efficient manufacturing costs.
You don't just fixate solely on cheaper flash storage in a vacuum and conclude that just because the price of the iPhone remains the same despite this, then Apple is somehow ripping you off without considering that aspects of the phone might and do cost more.