It has pretty much the same file system as OS X. IF you meant that you want a file manager like Finder and the ability to manage the file system and move files between various folder yourself, then you're probably in the 1-5% of people who really want to do that.
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.
Xcode Confirms 2GB of RAM in iPhone 6s and 6s Plus, 4GB of RAM in iPad Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It has pretty much the same file system as OS X. IF you meant that you want a file manager like Finder and the ability to manage the file system and move files between various folder yourself, then you're probably in the 1-5% of people who really want to do that.
It's one of the reasons I returned the 6 Plus. I had it for a day before I realized how laggy it was compared to the 6. Who knows maybe the 6/6s Plus line is just faulty but I'm hoping the 6s Plus fixes the problems. If the 6 Plus couldn't make it on its first iOS then it wasn't going to last for the duration of iOS 9.
If the 6s Plus is similar in behavior I'll just return it and get the 6s and be thankful for the same specs running a 750p screened phone. I'll mourn the loss of OIS but be happy the phone would last two generations well.
I am realistic. There are millions of general users of 16 GB iPhones that have no issue with storage space at all. Many of them upgrade from junk phones such as Samsung Galaxy Core, which has 8 GB of storage (just one of the examples). My parents both have 8 GB iPhones and have never ever even noticed that.
So, it might seem like an issue to many of us here and for an increasing amount of people that bought the 16 GB, but we shouldn't interpret this as a case where there isn't a market for 16 GB iPhones, because there clearly is.
If that were true, then they would have mentioned the 2GB in the 6S and the 4GB in the iPad Pro.
What Apple does in the keynote is talk about spec improvements that directly benefit the user and that can be demonstrated. If they had put 8GB of RAM into the 6S, how would they have demonstrated it? If they had tripled the resolution of the screen, how would they have demonstrated it? Bring out a microscope and show the small pixels?
They introduce Force/3D touch and they mention it as a "big improvement", because it's something the user actually notices. They mentioned the retina display as a big improvement, because users noticed it.
I call it the "My Wife Factor". My wife will use 3D touch, so it's a feature she notices. She noticed the improved display quality in the retina display. She will not notice the 2GB vs 1GB, and she would not notice if the screen had ten times the resolution. My wife represents about 95% of the customers Apple is targeting.
And that is the major difference to other companies who sell their products largely based on specs, hoping that someone will be impressed enough to buy their phone, because now it has more RAM.
I've just never had that problem at all, or I haven't noticed. I don't browse with more than 2 tabs on a phone, so maybe that's it. Do normal users actually do that and manage to run out of RAM? Heck, this new iPhone is going to have more RAM than my MacBook did, and it always served me well without using any swap space.
Last edited:
Half of the discussion here is about storage space and people complaining (on behalf of who?) about 16GB is too small. Thus it is probably proven that people love specs, but only cares as long as the numbers increase - not if there is any use.
However, important side effects with having lower memory, is that developers are forced to optimize and make their apps efficient with less memory. A shock for many developers who live by the "first to market"-mantra. The same apply to CPU-clockspeed and many other similar factors. And after years of ios-devices still extremely popular, this strategy have worked. Even other manufacturers of systems had to redesign their bloated crap, and adapt.
However, important side effects with having lower memory, is that developers are forced to optimize and make their apps efficient with less memory. A shock for many developers who live by the "first to market"-mantra. The same apply to CPU-clockspeed and many other similar factors. And after years of ios-devices still extremely popular, this strategy have worked. Even other manufacturers of systems had to redesign their bloated crap, and adapt.
How about they put an SD card in and give me the OPTION of changing my storage capacity? And keep the OS on internal flash memory while all the user stuff is on the SD card? Still, I wouldn't be so annoyed with the non-flexible storage capacity if every iOS update didn't use more and more storage. When someone buys the 16GB model, he knows what he's getting. He might not know that more and more of it is going to be unusable over time.
Because the average joe is isn't into technology enough, they see apple advertising 2GB and the competitor 3GB or 4GB and they go "Oh, so samsung is better then right?" When we all know there's way more to it than that. Like you said if us techsavy people find out anyway, they probably prefer it that way.
Well, I think what most people ultimately really complain about is the price difference between the 16GB and the 64GB model. The 16GB model is $649. The 64GB model is $749. Wow, what an outrage! $100 for an extra 48GB! They are ripping me off! Impossible.
The bizarre thing is: If Apple didn't offer a 16GB model, but just a 64GB model for $749, it wouldn't be a topic AT ALL! Nobody would talk about this. People would say that $749 is a lot, but that's it. But the pure fact that a 16GB model exists at such a lower price is a thorn in people's sides. They buy the 64GB model, because they feel that's what they need, but they feel ripped off, because of the "cheap" 16GB model.
It's weird though that it seems to be mostly people who are at least "moderately tech savy" who are tricked into buying something due to some "better" specs then. I really feel sorry for all those grandmothers who want a smartphone and have to listen to their grandsons go on about how phone X is better than phone Y because it has 4GB instead of 1GB of RAM.
And after all, whenever I admit somewhere that I am an iOS/Mac user, the general assumption becomes that I am not tech savvy, because I bought something with lower specs for a higher price (so I am always forced to recite my "tech biography"). So I wouldn't say that "we all know" that there's way more to these kind of devices than just the specs. In fact, I'd say that among tech savvy people, those who know that there is more to tech than specs are a minority.
Probably true for some. But I think people complain simply because there is something to complain about. The higher storage options have been around for quite some time, so the option is there.
For memory, the option is not there, but the apps still do work.
Shesh - I can quite easily go beyond 6 tabs for anything - since I'll often read a page of a website and 'open in new tab' for a subject / URL that appears interesting, but I want to hold off reading for a few moments. Much faster than awkwardly jumping back and fourth while in the middle of something, and much faster than having to afterwards go back through the article to re-find the interesting links.
Problem is, on low-RAM devices that'll will often cause apps / tabs in the background to be purged. Now if tab #2 was the one you were reading, and you were in the middle of doing something in tab #1 (or even another App) - odds are very good everything you did in tab #1 has been purged.
Last edited:
The logic is that in a well designed appliance you shouldn't really need to know what the specs are like RAM etc... They should just work. Hardly anyone know what ram an Xbox has, or their TV, why their phone?
This is exactly the reason why I believe the underlying reason behind the tab refreshes (which I do notice) on iOS is not a lack of RAM but rather some problem with iOS/Safari. There is no reason why Safari should run out of RAM that quickly - a tab does not take up such huge amounts of RAM. So adding more RAM improves the situation for the user but really only fixes the symptom and not the root cause.
Actually, it does. If you have an OS X device, open Activity Monitor while browsing in Safari and see for yourself. Mobile Safari is probably more RAM-optimised than desktop Safari but there's only so much you can do when browsing the same websites.
The problem with Safari and other browsers is that while the content itself is described in maybe KB's or a few MB's, the rendering is done completely and uncompressed, so while a fullscreen representation in retina mbp requires 14-15 MB a multi-page render of a webpage will require multiples depending on how long it is. That is the price to pay to have almost stutter-free scrolling of the webpage. I do believe a better option for iOS would be to keep the source files from the web, and render from those instead of always reloading from the network each time the rendering is flushed due to lack of memory.
For anyone who even remotely has anything to do with design, art, etc., iPad Pro looks really tempting, even if you're broke. Since I can't draw for ****, I don't really need it, but I guess someone in my family does, so the option is definitely on the table.
Actually, I feel ripped off anyway.
The thing is, this is the best phone on the market. And honestly the only phone I would buy without feeling ripped off would be the OnePlus 2. Samsung's phones are similarly priced to Apple's and, let's admit it, iOS is the real thing, and it's not free to make, which means more cash into the R&D.