Why didn't Apple increase storage in iPhone 5 to 32/64/128?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by -FlyAuburn-, Sep 29, 2012.

  1. -FlyAuburn- macrumors regular

    Jun 2, 2010
    As someone who is seriously contemplating swapping my 32GB iPhone 5 for a 64GB due to inadequate storage I have to ask; why didn't Apple just go to a larger storage format this generation?

    Anyone else feel that it is past time and that they should have done so?
  2. emmanevada macrumors member

    Sep 4, 2012
    I can understand people needing more storage, but I don't think there's any reason to get rid of the 16. Mine is plenty of storage for me, as I really don't keep too much on my iphone.
  3. dasx macrumors 65816


    Jun 18, 2012
  4. ninethirty macrumors 6502a

    Mar 1, 2006
    With WiFi everywhere as it is, and faster data speeds combined with cloud storage, I can't see them ever increasing the storage sizes in iPhones. As time goes by they may even reduce if it can pass on upfront cost savings and encourage subscriptions to iCloud.

  5. sviato macrumors 68020


    Oct 27, 2010
    HR 9038 A
    16GB is the most popular model. Also they want to move things "to the cloud" instead of hardware storage
  6. Dwalls90 macrumors 601


    Feb 5, 2009
    Because it would kill their margins on the highest storage variant. 64Gb iPhone costs $230 to build, 128Gb would cost $270. Selling at the same price point would result in less profits. Maybe next year if the NAND price for a 128Gn chip falls to the price of a 64Gb chip in 2011 prices.
  7. tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Apr 14, 2010
    Washington State
    Oh, I agree. But it would cost Apple more money and they would sell almost just as many without doing that, so of course from their POV, why would they?

    Not saying I like it, but that's how it is (capitalism at work).
  8. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Nov 7, 2007
    New Sanfrakota
    Saving it for the 5S next year. You know they don't put all their eggs in one basket.
  9. tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Apr 14, 2010
    Washington State
    Really? With data plans getting limited these days and well, you will still pay for Cloud storage (Apple only offers a little for free), why are people so happy about putting their data under other people's care (without having a copy of it themselves. You are really putting yourself under the company's whim by doing that). It's not going to be cheaper for the customer.

    Plus, apple's cloud is mostly a synching service, meaning that it does not take less storage on your device because you are still storing the stuff on your device (and if it wasn't I would not be happy about it. I really dislike Google's idea that everyone's data will be with them and they connect up to it with dummy terminals). I really don't understand why Apple users keep pointing to icloud why you need less storage. You still store the data on your device so it's not saving you storage (and I don't want it to!!! I don't want to be at Apple's whim on if I get access to my data. I want at least a copy for myself).
  10. jeffmetanna macrumors member

    Apr 16, 2010
    Maybe iCloud can help..

    Perhaps. But personally for me, the lack of video support for Photo Stream in iOS 6 was a bigger let down.

    The 8MP stills and 1080p videos iPhone 5 makes really fill up the space fast. In my brief test, a 5-min-long video I took with iPhone 5 was over 700MB! Photo Stream really helps move my photos out of the phone and store in my Mac but not so easily with the videos.

    I'm still investigating the best ways to automatically (or at least, easily) back up my photos & videos and have easy access to them from my other devices. Dropbox is doing the job at the moment, but I want the real solution from Apple.

    And the current implementation of iCloud backup must be improved. When I back up my iPhone with iCloud, it stores the photos & videos in my camera roll to the cloud but doesn't let me have access to them. And it stores the last 1000 photos separately as Photo Stream. So instead of treating Photo Stream as a means to transfer photos to other devices, Apple could make it a way to access your backed up photos & videos from iCloud. After all, I already have them in cloud, why can't I have access to them?
  11. -FlyAuburn- thread starter macrumors regular

    Jun 2, 2010
    This is my thinking as well.
  12. KittyToy macrumors 6502


    Sep 6, 2007
    I still don't get why anyone would need 128 gb of stuff on a phone. How da hell can u view all that even when I travel I barely get through the 8 gb of stuff on my phone. I just don't get it you can't watch 100 movies at once or listen to 3,000 songs at once so what's the point lol
  13. CatsTide macrumors 6502

    Sep 16, 2012
    Maybe they're smarter than we think. I have always got the biggest one available. Got the 64 this time but when the rumors were flying about the 128,I had already decided that 128 was just a bit too much for my needs and that I would get the 64 even if the 128 was an option. I think 128 is a bit overkill unless you wan't to carry a HUGE music/video library around with you.I keep my 500+Gb of mp3's on my external and put on no more than 10gb at a time on my phone.
  14. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Jun 19, 2009
    Cheaper to pay for iTunes Match than more storage
  15. ZipZap macrumors 603

    Dec 14, 2007
    Apple will never go beyond 64GB on a phone. Its makes no sense to do so as the phone is just not that usable for the things that consume gobs of storage.

    Look for larger storage on iPads.

    I hope the ipad mini sports 128GB.
  16. stevelam macrumors 65816

    Nov 4, 2010
    Because some people know how to take advantage of current tech and not live in the past.
  17. xraydoc macrumors 604


    Oct 9, 2005
    The reason is because there isn't a set of NAND memory chips that would let Apple offer 128GB. These are not the same kind as you'd find in a micro SD card.

    There's room for two memory chips, and the highest capacity available at the time the iPhone 5 was being designed was 32GB per. Samsung just recently started manufacturing 64GB chips, so the next design (next year's model) could offer more if Apple chooses.

    This is the same reason why the iPod touch was first to offer 64GB while the iPhone had a maximum of 32GB at the time - without the cellular radios, the iPod touch had room for 4 chips instead of the iPhone's two.
  18. ziggo, Sep 29, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2012

    ziggo macrumors 6502


    Jul 11, 2008
    Honestly yes I 100% agree with you. I completely understand what Apple's motives for NOT increasing storage capacity would be. Wanting to motivate customers to move to "the cloud" of course, however, there ARE instances where this just isn't effective for many people. I am a soldier in the Army and there have been MANY times where I've been in situations such as field training, where accessing the cloud is an impossibility because I don't get adequate service. I have a huge collection of music that I like to have on hand with me, and that coupled with pictures and videos taken really take up too much space, the fact that I currently have to carry around a 64GB iPod Touch to go along with my 32GB iPhone 4S (Touch for music and apps, phone for pictures and videos) isn't what I want to have to do, I would like all of my content to be able to be stored on my iPhone and if they offered a 128GB model I'd be on it like white on rice:D
  19. diamornte macrumors regular

    Apr 27, 2009
    iPhone 5S, probably the only selling point of next year's phone, seeing how technological progress is slowing to a crawl thanks to corporate greed.
  20. Mark Scheuern macrumors member

    Jul 31, 2007
    On the other hand, perhaps some people understand why having local storage still has value.
  21. Interstella5555 macrumors 603


    Jun 30, 2008

    Thanks, this is pretty much exactly what I've been posting for a while, nice to see that I'm not alone in my thinking.
  22. darngooddesign, Sep 29, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2012

    darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Jul 4, 2007
    Atlanta, GA
    It isn't cheaper for me. Lets say I keep my 5 for two years; that's $50 for Match. The 64GB phone is $100 more than the 32 so we still have Match saving me $50. But I can't use my office WiFi for streaming audio so I have to pay for a higher data plan. There is no way that that higher plan will cost $50 over two years.

    I listen to music on my phone all day at work because they asked us not to devote company bandwith to streaming music.

    I've had smaller capacity iPhones where I put a random 5GB playlists on them. I now have 40GB of music on my 5 and I much prefer having all my music with me. So you don't really have to "get" why I want to be able to listen to anything I own whenever I want as opposed to hoping I have a couple of songs from that band on my phone.
  23. HeyGreggie macrumors 65816


    Oct 8, 2011
    they need a reason for you to buy the iphone 5s.

    Usually they up the gigs on the "S" series...
  24. 1rottenapple macrumors 68000

    Apr 21, 2004
    I have a 32 ip4, and I'm gonna go with a 64 ip5. But the majority of people don't need 32 gb or larger. Out of my family, I have a 32 gb iPhone. All of my friends are totally content with their iPhone 16gb of memory.

    If you are in the Mac forums chances are your a tech guy and gal and will be more likely to want higher gigs. But WE represent 0.001% of the population. Soooo no bueno.
  25. GoreVidal macrumors 6502a


    Jun 19, 2011
    Would have gladly paid another $100 for a 128GB phone.

Share This Page