Apple could be planning iOS device with 128GB of storage

iPad mini retina 16, 32, 64 beginning at $329
iPad 5 32, 64, 128 beginning at $499

Will help to differentiate the two beyond display size.

And price. If the iPhone with contract tops out at $499 and the iPad tops out at $850 I think with wifi and I think the mini tops outwith wifi probably $500, not sure cause i haven't priced them yet, that means 128GB total storage would be up around at least a $599 or $699 with a 2 year plan or a grand with wifi on iPad. If that's the case, you might as well go out and get yourself the cheapest iMac.

Nice rumor; I'll buy it.

Got the 64GB now and it's chockfull. The ease of which to load a movie onto it and displaying it at a friends' house makes me want to have more storage.. When I ordered the 64 I didn't think I'd be using it to the fullest, but I always get the largest iPhone and iPad. I wonder how long it takes for some people to point out that Apple overcharges for their NAND flash and ought to simply put a SD Card reader in there.

About time.

It's for the new Apple TV. You know the 'real TV' one.

Idk if I would need it for my iPhone but it would be useful for the iPad

I can see an iPad with 128GB being they are sued for work and education.  Makes sense.  On an iPhone, I would think it would be more of a luxury.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be great if the capacity doubled while the price remained the same?

It's about time -- 128GB iPhone and iPad models are long overdue and awaited by imaging professionals. If Apple does add a 13 megapixel camera to the iPhone, a 128GB storage option will be needed on that device as much as on the iPad. This also probably is being done at this time to counter Microsoft's 128GB Surface Pro option.

This rumor makes sense in terms of component supplier capabilities.

 

I, for one, would love to have 128GB and would upgrade my iPad mini, iPad 4 and iPhone 5 in a heartbeat just for this.

I have a classic ipod with 160GB and it's juuuust about dead full. If they came out with a 128GB iphone, I'd considering trimming which parts of my music collection I sync and using my iphone as my car stereo the way I currently use my ipod. 64GB is great, but it's not enough for me to give up the old ipod yet. Either way, should be interesting to see which product goes to 128GB first, the iphone, ipod touch, ipad, or what.

You just might get your wish as the most logical step would be to retain an entry-level price of US 499.00 for the iPad 4 +WiFi while making 32gb the base capacity.

iPad 4/32gb = US 499.00

iPad 4/64gb = US 599.00

iPad 4/128gb = US 699.00

It's also about time that the either started including GSP modules in all of the iPad offerings or (at least) reduce the price of the cellular/GPS upgrade to US 99.00 or so.

We'll See Soon Enough... ?

Given that the Microsoft Surface Pro is running a Full Desktop Operating System, NOT merely a mobile one limited to only mobile apps, the iPad (in any capacity) is hardly a direct competitor to most (logical-thinking) consumers.

People on MacRumors are claiming this is just to get the ASP up on the iPad. Once again no matter what Apple does someone's going to be cynical about it.

Once again, the iPad is not competing with the Surface Pro.

The iPad competes with the Surface RT. ARM, no desktop apps, etc.

The MBA competes with the Surface Pro (especially given the price points and the fact that all the Surface Pro ads talk about is the keyboard - which suggests that most of them will be sold with keyboard).

And yet all those logical-thinking consumers failed to adopt the Windows-based tablet despite having more than a decade head start over the iPad and MS has made Windows RT which can't use any of the apps that logical-thinking consumers would want but have to use mobile apps that apparently can't do a damn thing.

I agree.

Apple seems to be moving extremely aggressively with the iPad. They are not letting Android gain a foothold in the market.

They will probably surprise us with a full Retina Mini retaining its $329 price and a 32GB iPad for $499

And people ignorant of astronomy are surprised when others know how to calculate a lunar eclipse.

I guess they are testing iOS on a MacBook Air

That isn't happening and here's why:

1. No evidence of iOS running on x86_64.
2. No evidence of MBAs getting a touch screen
3. No evidence of iOS getting a pointer (mouse) capability, access to external HDDs, printers, and whatever other drivers that are expected from a notebook PC.
4. If Apple does go with an ARM-based notebook it would be an ARM version of Mac OS X and likely would be a different line of machine because the performance disparity between ARM and the comparatively super-fast Core chips in the MBAs.

That seems like the reasonable step for the next iPad.

Yes, and not only that: if Apple discards (as it seems to be the case) adding touch capabilities to OSX running on a tablet with MacBook Air specs, that will be yet another step on the direction of leaving the computer industry and becoming a 100% toy maker. Since I need computers, I'm already preparing my move to Linux. It won't happen in the short term, but, honestly, I don't see OSX staying as a top OS ten years from now.

Not everything needs to be innovative. Some things are okay just being good. Like my pen, it's not innovative, but it's good- and that's the way I like it. How about a phone with 128gb storage, it's not innovative, but it's good. Simply because Apple over the past three decades has essentially designed the modern computer, mouse input, modern smartphone, modern tablet, modern "Ultrabook" (aka macbook air ripoff), modern magic mousepad/multitouch, and spurred the popularization of speech-input as a method of data input, does NOT mean every single product change they make is a failure because it does not live up to the caliber of kickass that Apple has set.

 

Speaking of which, who the hell is doing better?

Hate all you want, but Apple makes excellent products with far better build quality and durability and functionality than its peers. Its not like others are taking the place of Apple's true innovation, Samsung is just riding its wake and changing little specs here or there that a certain percentage of people prefer over the single(ish) iPhone design/size.

 

Yes, Apple charges a premium. It's a goddamn business! They make money. Apple charges more for an objectively better piece of hardware and more user friendly and fluid interface (see iOS vs. all others and OSX vs. umm... XP, Vista, windows 8, windows 7 was alright but it was essentially XP with OSX features. There's something called VALUE in the world. instead of just looking at price, look at price and what it buys you. $1 spent on an apple product will buy me more than $1 spent on a windows or android product. And hell, i've had the iphone since the very first. do you all remember dumbphones? pre-iphone era "smartphones?" It's easily the most useful tool I have ever possessed.

 

Yes, android is catching up and has cool features, but user interface and friendliness are much better on Apple products. It likely won't pass it because it uses iPhone as a guide.

 

My history of electronics:

Dell desktop> HP desktop-> Toshiba laptop-> LG phone-> Japanese keitei (lived there 2006, at the time they were watching TV and starting their cars on their phones)-> Origional iPhone-> Homebuilt windows machine-> iPhone 3GS -> iPhone 4S -> Macbook air

 

My macbook air is faster than my decked out crazy ram desktop because it doesn't have damn windows bloatware on it, it runs OSX (which I now love), and it's solid state memory. I've played around with androids, they've got some cool features but they're clunky, they NEED the ram they scream about in spec wars because android is a less efficient system. And apple products last longer, especially if you take care of them.

About time. In the age of e-books from iBook Author, 16 GB is simply just not enough. The smallest one can be half a Gig in size.

64GB, you mean?

----
@DaHarder: you should change your name to TryHarder. Well, actually you should Work Smarter, but it doesn't look like that is something we could expect.

 

16GB ? 

Your   post   must    be   from   07.

Edited by Rabbit_Coach - 1/28/13 at 5:23am

Not necessarily-
This has been my thought all along- If they end up releasing another iPad this spring/early summer, it will be the new redesigned model- similar to iPad mini. Although, my argument has always been- what else could they possibly add to it? It already has the A6X, retina, 1gb ram, hd FaceTime, lightning, and a 5mp camera.
What are they gonna do, just redesign and that's it? If they doubled the storage at the same price and only offered 32, 64, 128- that would make the most sense with the redesign in terms of value added.
Now, if they don't release until the fall, an A7x redesign will be more than adequate and they'll keep pricing as is and add 128 to the top.

To your point- there is no way to "innovate" the iPad at this point. It, in itself, was the innovation. Now it can simply evolve. And it they shave .3 pounds off of it, and keep the same or better battery life- that would be amazing.

According to your specification, most consumer seem to belong to the non-logical-thinking category. As it has become very clear the iPad has become a surprisingly (to me at least) strong competitor to any portable computer. Most dominantly the netbooks, which still run a so called Full Desktop OS.

Logically you may have some points, but the reality shows quiet a different picture.

Edited by Rabbit_Coach - 1/28/13 at 6:02am

 

Yes, especially in the iPad and iPod touch, where there's more room for memory chips.  

 

The iPhone only has space for one Flash chip, so it has to wait for Samsung et al to cram more memory into a single package.

 

 

Nothing cynical about the truth.   People here have made similar comments about using high end memory to get the ASP (and average profit margin) up.

 

For example, just recently, this post:

 

All new iOS devices are more than ready for a new increase in standard storage. I think 32GB should be the new minimum. Actually, I think they should've started doing it when the iPhone 4 Retina hit the market. Since Retina displays have come, storage space isn't what it used to be. 

 

At the very minimum, Apple needs to start getting realistic with storage capacity pricing. Microsoft is only charging $100 for a bump from 64GB to 128GB in the Surface Pro. Most other companies are only charging around $50 per increase size (doubling). Meanwhile, Apple is charging $200 for a wimpy additional 48GB (16GB to 64GB).  

 

Since Apple bought out that company from Israel that specializes in maximizing the performance of cheap(er) flash storage, the can't be using anything that's really expensive. 

iPod?

Maybe Apple EOLs the iPod classic and finally loads the iPod touch with enough memory?

Why not just offer a model with a microSD slot and be done with the incremental bumps? Seems like Apple just keeps spinning their wheels on new hardware designs - thinner and faster seems like their big innovations lately. Sure those are nice attributes but just because somethings pretty to look and hold, it doesn't help if it slips right out of your hand because it's smooth. It didn't take but 3 days before my mini slipped out of my hands because it's so slick (before I could get a decent case for it).

What's the next big leap? Software?

I think that's a good idea. They should remove the 16gb option and start the upcoming rumored ipad mini retina with 32gb at $329 and start the thinner and lighter ipad 5 with 32gb of storage at $499. Also Apple should start the iphone 5s with 32gb at $199 on contract and remove the 16gb option altogether.

Who defines "not really expensive"? Do you think that 64 GB (or 128 GB) flash chips are cheap - even if you use the Israeli technology? It can't work magic.


"Enough" according to whom? Since the 16 GB devices appear to be the best sellers right now, I would say that the market has determined that 16 GB is plenty for an entry level device.


For the same reasons that have been given the last few million times someone asked that question:
1. Reliability. MicroSD cards and slots are not as reliable as built in flash. Not only does that degrade the customer's experience, but it causes support problems for Apple. Google "microsd reliability" for tons of examples.
2. Dirt can easily enter through the slot.
3. Any opening in the case and extra slots require stiffening and support devices - which adds to the weight and cost.

If you want a cheap, unreliable phone, you're free to buy one. Just don't expect Apple to put cheap crap in your phone.

They will eventually do that, but only when the cost and competitive situation requires it. It's not going to happen simply because some people on forums like this demand it.

Lol. Yeah. + photos. + podcasts. + songs. 64 GB is just too small.

 

For what reason though?  It would make the "regular" iPad users feel superior, but make the iPad mini users feel inferior.  Without a good reason, this seems like a bad idea to me.  

 

It's always good to have more storage if it can be had at the same price, but this seems kind of "early" to me. the current 64GB iPhones and iPads are the thin edge of the market.  

 

Almost no one buys them.  The idea that there is some kind of terrific "need" for this or that it should have happened a while ago seems pretty faulty.  

 

This is Apple being ahead of the game, not behind it.  

 

 

Eduction primarily uses the 16GB iPads though.  There are some 32GB ones out there but that's rare.  They certainly don't buy the 64GB ones much at all. 

 

The reasoning there is that the devices are generally bought in groups for class use, loans, etc. and therefore the students don't have masses of their own personal stuff on them.  Apps take up almost no space, it's non-educational games, movies, and music that take up the space and those are all personal items not usually found on a set of managed devices.  

 

Additionally, when you are buying in the hundreds of units, an extra hundred dollars each for the next storage bump is a significant factor.