If the iPhone took up that much space you can be certain the fandroid community, iTrolls, and bottomfeeding lawyers would demand Apple be sued for misleading advertising.
Yet hardly a peep. Interesting the hypocrisy going on here.
And if Steve Jobs told folks "Go buy an SD card", that would add even more fuel to the fire.
Yet hardly a peep.
I swear. Fandroids are the most hypocritical lot of folks around. I guess they have such low standards and expect dismal support and service, they are used to it.
It's already extremely expensive despite sporting some clearly inferior components, like the display colour accuracy, yet they want you to go buy additional components. I guess that's not a big deal for many Android users as I've oft heard over the years that they like to have additional batteries for their devices instead of a single, long lasting battery.
I wonder if Samsung has a patent on limiting the SD to data only. If Apple was so inclined they could use a similar method, locking down the apps to prevent piracy but allowing the users use SD cards for data. I just looked at my iPhone and I use about 1.7GB for apps. My iPad is at home but I suspect it will have quite a bit more but probably still less than 10 Gb in apps.
If the Galaxy allowed you to remove some of the pre-installed apps, that would be reasonable %u2013 but I'm guessing that's also not an option. Hey, but the 50% larger screen makes up for having 50% less apps, right?
So you think Apple should sell their component upgrades at cost?
What isn't stated is that by the time the Android user buys the necessary extra battery, required SD cards as well as pay the higher cost for apps, the price easily passes the cost of an iPhone.
using a Micro SD card vs SSD is like using a floppy instead of a hard drive.
I never much cared or even really used SD cards. Only on a digital camera I bought 10 years ago and rarely used because the batteries lasted only a couple of hours.
Seriously... Don't make your argument based on some experience you had 10 years ago.
This doesn't surprise me, samsung just makes the user think there doing them a favor by putting the sd card slot in like its a feature that is great. Its not. First like the article mentions above no apps on the sd card and second what the article does not mention sd is a ton slower than built in nand flash. I really mean a lot slower. Do a web search for sd speed versus built in nand flash. The results will surprise you with how much slower sd cards are.
For example SanDisk - Extreme Pro 16GB microSDHC UHS-I Class 10 which is the sd card class with the fastest spec is 95 MB/sec data rate and retails for $50.00.
The nand flash reads and writes in the iPhone 5 at 400MB/s.
Apple can sell their upgrades for whatever they want. But who is the sheep when you can buy a 16 GB sd card for $10.
So you buy this 16GB SD Card for $10. Good for you. Now what? It doesn't work well on Android-based devices since you can't use it for apps, you need to manage the card, and it's slow as those that cal other sheep for making sound financial decisions. The only good news is that the average Android user isn't using 4.x so they'll be able to use their SD Card for apps.
As for your other poorly conceived notions I'll try to explain this as clear as possible but it's a bit abstract as one will have to look at the bigger picture to understand. First don't think of each iPhone model as a single entity. Think of the product line. Apple isn't charging you $100 for just the additional storage, they are charging you based on many criteria.
For instance, how many they manufacturer, how many they can sell at various tiers, etc. It's quite possible that the display that would make it in the low-end iPhone 5 won't make it into the high-end iPhone 5. Don't be ignorant to the fact that the same component, right down to the model number, can yield very different performance results.
Finally, the most important thing to remember is that Apple (like all for-profit companies) sells at what the market can bear. If it was just $10 for each doubling of NAND then you don't have a $450, $460, and $470 iPhone 5 range, you would more likely be closer to the $630, $640, and $650 iPhone 5 range to meet their margins. Now you have created a problem where Apple doesn't service the lower-end of the market and even in the US the subsidies still cost nearly $300 out of pocket. Now that you've foolishly destroyed that huge segment of the market economics of scale can't work as effectively thus reducing their profit margins which they may make up by increasing the price. You've also pushed nearly everyone to the 64GB model because $20 more to go from 16GB to 64GB is worth it which results in unsold product and completely fucking up the order. Nice job¡
USB 3 won't change anything, the weak link in the chain is the flash chip.
This is meaningless. There is always a weak link but there is also continuous improvement. You can't justify or dismiss USB 3 based on yesterday's technology.
Keep in mind that phones don't have SSD-like performance. SSDs get their speed because they run 8 or 16 chips in parallel banks, much like how computer RAM modules are banks of 8 or 16 chips each. Phones don't do anything like that.
Err maybe maybe not. At one point stack flash modules have been used. In any event technology evolves, if there is a real need Apple will find a way to implement faster flash subsystems. Think about it they bought Anobit which gives them access to the IP to realize better flash performance in mobile systems.
By the way, I can go a couple days of heavy use on one of my cameras, taking 64GB of photos. Once, I went six months between battery charges on very light use, because the internal charge decay was so low.
People probably won't want to hear this one but I hardly pick up my DSLR anymore. IPhones quality might suck but the convenience makes a hug difference.
In any event my point is USB 3 is about future products not yesterday's.
If the Galaxy allowed you to remove some of the pre-installed apps, that would be reasonable %u2013 but I'm guessing that's also not an option. Hey, but the 50% larger screen makes up for having 50% less apps, right?
Rooting it would allow you to remove a considerable amount of bloatware. How many GB you could remove I have no idea, but probably at least 3 or more by installing a custom ROM or just deleting all the Samsung and carrier bloatware.
But Samsung really screwed up. That was a very arrogant response. Their base model should have been 32GB and not 16GB to begin with. If you could also store apps on an SD card then it wouldn't be that big of a deal but certain apps can take up several GB's a piece so this will be a major issue for many once they realize they have to uninstall apps to install new ones.
In any event my point is USB 3 is about future products not yesterday's.
And if the flash chip isn't any faster than USB 2 then you're wasting power so people can have their dick swinging bragging rights. It's about practicality, not lame platitudes. I'm sure the interconnect will be updated when it actually helps, there's no reason to do it any sooner.
I swear. Fandroids are the most hypocritical lot of folks around. I guess they have such low standards and expect dismal support and service, they are used to it.
It's not just hypocritical, they scream lack of self-respect and self-esteem (considering how many of them keep polluting forums like this).
"73.15(GB) would be available to the user. That additional space, though, couldn't be used to store apps, as Google removed that capability with Android 4.0."
Wow.
Aside from adding in the additional cost for a 64GB SD card (add roughly $50 to the cost of the phone), there's the matter of having enough space for apps. Since about half of my 32GB iPhone is used for apps, and roughly 60% of my 64GB iPad is the same, that sure wouldn't work for me.
This is like saying, "Your laptop ships with 100GB of free HD space, but you can only use 10GB of it for apps. Oh, but half of THAT space is already used by the OS..."
I think a good word to describe this is, maybe, "ludicrous"?
It's certainly not as bad as paying Apple $100 to get a bump in memory.
Although one could agree in principle, sort of, you kind of failed to mention they DOUBLE the memory per $100 increment… that's not just a "bump"...
16GB -> 32GB -> 64GB -> 128GB in $100 increments (using iPad as an example).
No-one will argue that Apple prices on RAM have always been on the high side. But I can vouch that it's top-flight memory that will rarely, if ever, have problems.
Not sure if your point is really that valid, but ok...
Comments
It's already extremely expensive despite sporting some clearly inferior components, like the display colour accuracy, yet they want you to go buy additional components. I guess that's not a big deal for many Android users as I've oft heard over the years that they like to have additional batteries for their devices instead of a single, long lasting battery.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
…approximately 6.85GB occupies [the] system part of internal memory…
Yes, iOS has ballooned since the 1.0, but that's just ludicrous. OS X doesn't even take that much space!
Once the iPhone 3GS and iPad 2 are finally kicked to the curb, dropping non-retina elements should be able to slim it down a little, too.
Not so with Android!
Originally Posted by MacRulez
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
Thanks for the completely meaningless link and zero context. Good to know that we can always count on you for worthless crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So you think Apple should sell their component upgrades at cost?
Apple can sell their upgrades for whatever they want. But who is the sheep when you can buy a 16 GB sd card for $10.
And even if somebody goes out and buys a 64GB SD card, you can't store apps on it?
And aren't SD cards much slower than internal Flash storage? That would make them not good for many purposes.
This is so damn amateurish.
I posted that without researching to verify the capacities so I very well could be mistaken.
I wonder if Samsung has a patent on limiting the SD to data only. If Apple was so inclined they could use a similar method, locking down the apps to prevent piracy but allowing the users use SD cards for data. I just looked at my iPhone and I use about 1.7GB for apps. My iPad is at home but I suspect it will have quite a bit more but probably still less than 10 Gb in apps.
What isn't stated is that by the time the Android user buys the necessary extra battery, required SD cards as well as pay the higher cost for apps, the price easily passes the cost of an iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
using a Micro SD card vs SSD is like using a floppy instead of a hard drive.
I never much cared or even really used SD cards. Only on a digital camera I bought 10 years ago and rarely used because the batteries lasted only a couple of hours.
Seriously... Don't make your argument based on some experience you had 10 years ago.
You're not helping.
For example SanDisk - Extreme Pro 16GB microSDHC UHS-I Class 10 which is the sd card class with the fastest spec is 95 MB/sec data rate and retails for $50.00.
The nand flash reads and writes in the iPhone 5 at 400MB/s.
The internal memory bandwidth of the LPDDR2 1066MHz in the iPhone 5 is 6500 MB/sec to 8500/sec
Micro sd's will never be as fast as internal memory on the mother board.
Theres a good article on the iPhone 5's internal memory speed here http://www.anandtech.com/show/6297/iphone-5-memory-size-and-speed-revealed-1gb-lpddr21066
deleted
So you buy this 16GB SD Card for $10. Good for you. Now what? It doesn't work well on Android-based devices since you can't use it for apps, you need to manage the card, and it's slow as those that cal other sheep for making sound financial decisions. The only good news is that the average Android user isn't using 4.x so they'll be able to use their SD Card for apps.
As for your other poorly conceived notions I'll try to explain this as clear as possible but it's a bit abstract as one will have to look at the bigger picture to understand. First don't think of each iPhone model as a single entity. Think of the product line. Apple isn't charging you $100 for just the additional storage, they are charging you based on many criteria.
For instance, how many they manufacturer, how many they can sell at various tiers, etc. It's quite possible that the display that would make it in the low-end iPhone 5 won't make it into the high-end iPhone 5. Don't be ignorant to the fact that the same component, right down to the model number, can yield very different performance results.
Finally, the most important thing to remember is that Apple (like all for-profit companies) sells at what the market can bear. If it was just $10 for each doubling of NAND then you don't have a $450, $460, and $470 iPhone 5 range, you would more likely be closer to the $630, $640, and $650 iPhone 5 range to meet their margins. Now you have created a problem where Apple doesn't service the lower-end of the market and even in the US the subsidies still cost nearly $300 out of pocket. Now that you've foolishly destroyed that huge segment of the market economics of scale can't work as effectively thus reducing their profit margins which they may make up by increasing the price. You've also pushed nearly everyone to the 64GB model because $20 more to go from 16GB to 64GB is worth it which results in unsold product and completely fucking up the order. Nice job¡
People probably won't want to hear this one but I hardly pick up my DSLR anymore. IPhones quality might suck but the convenience makes a hug difference.
In any event my point is USB 3 is about future products not yesterday's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
It's certainly not as bad as paying Apple $100 to get a bump in memory.
Correction... a bump in usable memory.Not saying its cheap, but let's be accurate here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rlob
If the Galaxy allowed you to remove some of the pre-installed apps, that would be reasonable %u2013 but I'm guessing that's also not an option. Hey, but the 50% larger screen makes up for having 50% less apps, right?
Rooting it would allow you to remove a considerable amount of bloatware. How many GB you could remove I have no idea, but probably at least 3 or more by installing a custom ROM or just deleting all the Samsung and carrier bloatware.
But Samsung really screwed up. That was a very arrogant response. Their base model should have been 32GB and not 16GB to begin with. If you could also store apps on an SD card then it wouldn't be that big of a deal but certain apps can take up several GB's a piece so this will be a major issue for many once they realize they have to uninstall apps to install new ones.
And if the flash chip isn't any faster than USB 2 then you're wasting power so people can have their dick swinging bragging rights. It's about practicality, not lame platitudes. I'm sure the interconnect will be updated when it actually helps, there's no reason to do it any sooner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I swear. Fandroids are the most hypocritical lot of folks around. I guess they have such low standards and expect dismal support and service, they are used to it.
It's not just hypocritical, they scream lack of self-respect and self-esteem (considering how many of them keep polluting forums like this).
Wow.
Aside from adding in the additional cost for a 64GB SD card (add roughly $50 to the cost of the phone), there's the matter of having enough space for apps. Since about half of my 32GB iPhone is used for apps, and roughly 60% of my 64GB iPad is the same, that sure wouldn't work for me.
This is like saying, "Your laptop ships with 100GB of free HD space, but you can only use 10GB of it for apps. Oh, but half of THAT space is already used by the OS..."
I think a good word to describe this is, maybe, "ludicrous"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
It's certainly not as bad as paying Apple $100 to get a bump in memory.
Although one could agree in principle, sort of, you kind of failed to mention they DOUBLE the memory per $100 increment… that's not just a "bump"...
16GB -> 32GB -> 64GB -> 128GB in $100 increments (using iPad as an example).
No-one will argue that Apple prices on RAM have always been on the high side. But I can vouch that it's top-flight memory that will rarely, if ever, have problems.
Not sure if your point is really that valid, but ok...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In any event my point is USB 3 is about future products not yesterday's.
Thunderbolt is about future products, thunderbolt and lightning.