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.
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.
---- @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.
Lol. Yeah. + photos. + podcasts. + songs. 64 GB is just too small.
Will help to differentiate the two beyond display size.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
I can see an iPad with 128GB being they are (used) for work and education. Makes sense. ...
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.
... 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. ...
This is pretty hilarious (and by that I mean faulty) reasoning.
People make unsupported, emotionally based statements about the reasoning behind this move, which cannot be proven. Then someone notes the obvious which is that it looks like cynicism. Your response is ... that it's not cynicism, but instead just "the truth," yet you also provide no actual evidence of this at all (and you say it in a cynical way too!)
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.
Ever see a trend line on where the market is going? Your desired use case is just an irrelevant blip on the direction the market is actually going. As much as I respect Linux from a technical merit standpoint, to even imply that it's going to gain traction as an end user OS (yes, it has been adopted on a mass scale as an embedded solution) is ludicrous.
Always go back to Jobs' analogy about trucks and cars. Trucks aren't going away, but they won't be the focus in a post PC world.
I think this makes sense on the iPad, where space is never enough to store movies (my 64Gb iPad does not have enough space for everything I want to store in it), but a 16Gb iPhone covers all my needs.
It's for the new Apple TV. You know the 'real TV' one.
Haven't they shown they don't want internal storage in that realm?
Originally Posted by Rogifan
People on MacRumors…
There's the problem. Are there even any pro-Apple people left over there?
They have probably the best-written rule about trolling, but their enforcement thereof is 0%.
Originally Posted by mperezai123
Why not just offer a model with a microSD slot and be done with the incremental bumps?
Because that's terrible? I'd rather have fast, built-in storage than "expandable" crap, having to carry around a little pill case of expensive cards the size of my pinky fingernail, trying to remember which one held what data.
Originally Posted by focher
1. Apple discontinues the iPad 2 and moves the iPad 4 16GB to that price point.
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.
It's not just about denser NAND (because that exists) the problem is the performance and longevity of denser NAND. This is the reason NAND hasn't following Moore's Law.
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.
But are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I don't think so. First of all your comparison to a company creating an average APR and profit margin by spacing products accordingly has no barring in this conversation. Second, it's cynical and foolish to think the only reason they would make a 128GB iPad was to increase the APR, not because it's a device they think will sell to those that need/want it and is now feasible with the next iPad revision
For your statement to be true you have to tell use why they didn't do this earlier and why the iPad has been priced so cheaply to begin with when they can't keep it on the shelves. Your statement is predicated on an unspoken belief that Apple woke up one day and said "What if had a more expensive iPad" as if that never occurred to them which makes your comments cynical and not at al truthful. Finally, you have to argue why you think a 128GB iPad would go up price and not be the new high end model.
"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.
Of course 16 GB is "enough" for an entry level device. If Apple offered a 128 GB iPod Touch, it most certainly wouldn't be the entry level iPod!
Given how slow it is to sync music to an iPod Touch, it would be nice to fit a whole iTunes library on one. That's why I own an iPod Classic, so I can cram as much music as possible on it and don't have to sync as often. It's also nice to always have what I want to hear with me. I listen to a lot of Jazz encoded in Apple Lossless, so 120 GB fills up pretty quick.
If an 128 GB iOS device is offered it won't be priced above the 64 GB version it'll be priced the same. I seems that the iPhone 5s/6 iPad 5 (maybe the next-gen Mini) will be offered in 32/64/128 GB versions instead of the current capacities of 16/32/64 GB's. Nearly everybody saw this coming, right?
Is that the (mini) equivalent of guaranteeing it will happen?
At what point have they ever dropped their previous model in favor of a "low end" of the same? They'll keep the iPad 2 around.
See, unlike my beliefs, yours are based on zero events in the past. It's not impossible that Apple would just up and do something they've never done, but you have to consider what it implies from all sides.
They'll have to deal with the people that just bought an iPad 2; it's now discontinued and they can get two models up for the same price. They'll have to deal with people that just bought a 16GB iPad 4; they'll get $100 back. They'll have a smaller margin on their lowest-end iPad; they'll have to deal with that.
What's wrong with just adding the 128 on top like they did the 16GB first-gen iPhone?
The iPad (4) and mini use Hynix H2JTDG8UD2MBR 16 GB NAND Flash. Anyone know what the process node (nanometer) is for those chips? It's looking like 20 and 25nm are starting to ramp up that Apple may be able to double capacity for the same price point this year.
At what point have they ever dropped their previous model in favor of a "low end" of the same? They'll keep the iPad 2 around.
See, unlike my beliefs, yours are based on zero events in the past. It's not impossible that Apple would just up and do something they've never done, but you have to consider what it implies from all sides.
They'll have to deal with the people that just bought an iPad 2; it's now discontinued and they can get two models up for the same price. They'll have to deal with people that just bought a 16GB iPad 4; they'll get $100 back. They'll have a smaller margin on their lowest-end iPad; they'll have to deal with that.
What's wrong with just adding the 128 on top like they did the 16GB first-gen iPhone?
That would be 6 more SKUs: 2 colours (white and black) x 2 types (WiFi and Cellular) x 2 cellular types (GSM and CDMA). More importantly it means 4 different capacity sizes for the same generation device which Apple has little to no history of.
"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.
I'm sure the fact that 16GB are the best sellers has a lot to do with the price bump to get more.
I'm fine with 16Gb on my phone but then I don't load it up with music.
My 32 GB ipad is full. I agree with your comments on microSD but I would like a full size SD on the ipad.
With a 13MP camera likely for the next iPhone along with HD video recording, you can fill up a 64GB iPhone very quickly. Even with the current camera it doesn't take long. That is not even taking into account the space required for apps, music and movies. I have a 64GB iPhone and would love to have more space.
Joining the "increased margin" bandwagon here. A 128GB iPhone or iPad or iPod touch would no doubt be a high-margin product for Apple. Obvious.
But maybe Apple is thinking about offsetting the (rumored) low-cost iPhone with the (rumored) high-margin 128GB iPhone. Sales of the low-end model would likely be massive. That's the whole point of a low-end iPhone: volume sales. But Apple has seen that high-end models sell very well too. I seem to recall that 64 GB iPhones sell almost as well as the 16GB models, despite the $200 higher price.
Comments
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by currentinterest
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
About time.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
I can see an iPad with 128GB being they are (used) for work and education. Makes sense. ...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
... 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. ...
This is pretty hilarious (and by that I mean faulty) reasoning.
People make unsupported, emotionally based statements about the reasoning behind this move, which cannot be proven. Then someone notes the obvious which is that it looks like cynicism. Your response is ... that it's not cynicism, but instead just "the truth," yet you also provide no actual evidence of this at all (and you say it in a cynical way too!)
Hmmmm... what are we to conclude from this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
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.
Ever see a trend line on where the market is going? Your desired use case is just an irrelevant blip on the direction the market is actually going. As much as I respect Linux from a technical merit standpoint, to even imply that it's going to gain traction as an end user OS (yes, it has been adopted on a mass scale as an embedded solution) is ludicrous.
Always go back to Jobs' analogy about trucks and cars. Trucks aren't going away, but they won't be the focus in a post PC world.
My prediction:
1. Apple discontinues the iPad 2 and moves the iPad 4 16GB to that price point.
2. Apple keeps the following models and price points for the iPad 4: 16 @ $399, 32 @ $499, 64 @ $599, and 128 @ $699.
3. The iPad mini is the low cost entry point with the same technical specs as the iPad 2.
Now the timing of such changes...that's a whole different thing.
Originally Posted by charlituna
It's for the new Apple TV. You know the 'real TV' one.
Haven't they shown they don't want internal storage in that realm?
Originally Posted by Rogifan
People on MacRumors…
There's the problem. Are there even any pro-Apple people left over there?
They have probably the best-written rule about trolling, but their enforcement thereof is 0%.
Originally Posted by mperezai123
Why not just offer a model with a microSD slot and be done with the incremental bumps?
Because that's terrible? I'd rather have fast, built-in storage than "expandable" crap, having to carry around a little pill case of expensive cards the size of my pinky fingernail, trying to remember which one held what data.
Originally Posted by focher
1. Apple discontinues the iPad 2 and moves the iPad 4 16GB to that price point.
I doubt it.
It's not just about denser NAND (because that exists) the problem is the performance and longevity of denser NAND. This is the reason NAND hasn't following Moore's Law.
But are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I don't think so. First of all your comparison to a company creating an average APR and profit margin by spacing products accordingly has no barring in this conversation. Second, it's cynical and foolish to think the only reason they would make a 128GB iPad was to increase the APR, not because it's a device they think will sell to those that need/want it and is now feasible with the next iPad revision
For your statement to be true you have to tell use why they didn't do this earlier and why the iPad has been priced so cheaply to begin with when they can't keep it on the shelves. Your statement is predicated on an unspoken belief that Apple woke up one day and said "What if had a more expensive iPad" as if that never occurred to them which makes your comments cynical and not at al truthful. Finally, you have to argue why you think a 128GB iPad would go up price and not be the new high end model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
"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.
Of course 16 GB is "enough" for an entry level device. If Apple offered a 128 GB iPod Touch, it most certainly wouldn't be the entry level iPod!
Given how slow it is to sync music to an iPod Touch, it would be nice to fit a whole iTunes library on one. That's why I own an iPod Classic, so I can cram as much music as possible on it and don't have to sync as often. It's also nice to always have what I want to hear with me. I listen to a lot of Jazz encoded in Apple Lossless, so 120 GB fills up pretty quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
My prediction:
1. Apple discontinues the iPad 2 and moves the iPad 4 16GB to that price point.
I doubt it.
Is that the (mini) equivalent of guaranteeing it will happen?
Originally Posted by focher
Is that the (mini) equivalent of guaranteeing it will happen?
At what point have they ever dropped their previous model in favor of a "low end" of the same? They'll keep the iPad 2 around.
See, unlike my beliefs, yours are based on zero events in the past. It's not impossible that Apple would just up and do something they've never done, but you have to consider what it implies from all sides.
They'll have to deal with the people that just bought an iPad 2; it's now discontinued and they can get two models up for the same price. They'll have to deal with people that just bought a 16GB iPad 4; they'll get $100 back. They'll have a smaller margin on their lowest-end iPad; they'll have to deal with that.
What's wrong with just adding the 128 on top like they did the 16GB first-gen iPhone?
That would be 6 more SKUs: 2 colours (white and black) x 2 types (WiFi and Cellular) x 2 cellular types (GSM and CDMA). More importantly it means 4 different capacity sizes for the same generation device which Apple has little to no history of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
snip
"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.
I'm sure the fact that 16GB are the best sellers has a lot to do with the price bump to get more.
I'm fine with 16Gb on my phone but then I don't load it up with music.
My 32 GB ipad is full. I agree with your comments on microSD but I would like a full size SD on the ipad.
With a 13MP camera likely for the next iPhone along with HD video recording, you can fill up a 64GB iPhone very quickly. Even with the current camera it doesn't take long. That is not even taking into account the space required for apps, music and movies. I have a 64GB iPhone and would love to have more space.
Joining the "increased margin" bandwagon here. A 128GB iPhone or iPad or iPod touch would no doubt be a high-margin product for Apple. Obvious.
But maybe Apple is thinking about offsetting the (rumored) low-cost iPhone with the (rumored) high-margin 128GB iPhone. Sales of the low-end model would likely be massive. That's the whole point of a low-end iPhone: volume sales. But Apple has seen that high-end models sell very well too. I seem to recall that 64 GB iPhones sell almost as well as the 16GB models, despite the $200 higher price.