So, is there anything left that Apple "might" do? I think these analysts have covered every fucking permutation of every possibility, with the exception of Apple opening a grocery store chain or something.
Maybe new iPods? I would appreciate it - a new iPod Touch with specs matching the 5S, because I don't use a cell phone but I like the rest of it...
Those have all come in the late-Summer/Autumn event.
There was no iPod Touch release last year... I don't recall any iPod releases last year. So they could do an early release this year. You're right, though, it's more likely they'll stick to the pattern of autumn releases for music items. I was just commenting that it seems to be the one thing that hasn't been rumoured yet (not counting a grocery store chain).
There was no iPod Touch release last year... I don't recall any iPod releases last year. So they could do an early release this year. You're right, though, it's more likely they'll stick to the pattern of autumn releases for music items. I was just commenting that it seems to be the one thing that hasn't been rumoured yet (not counting a grocery store chain).
There wasn't, neither were there any iPods 2 years before that. I'd say they moved to a 2-year cycle that coincidences, for the iPod Touch, to the iPhone getting a new casing design, but of course they could change that up again. The iPod Classic hasn't been updated in years so eventually the others will likely get to that same point.
Personally I would really like to see a cheaper MacBook running iOS. A 12" or 13" screen with same style of the MacBook Air for around £500 would easily handle my needs.
Personally I would really like to see a cheaper MacBook running iOS. A 12" or 13" screen with same style of the MacBook Air for around £500 would easily handle my needs.
How would that work when iOS has no mechanism for controlling a mouse pointer or any of the other million features found in a notebook computer? Why wouldn't you simply want a cheaper MacBook?
How would that work when iOS has no mechanism for controlling a mouse pointer or any of the other million features found in a notebook computer? Why wouldn't you simply want a cheaper MacBook?
Not sure how it would work, I'll leave that to Apple. Wouldn't have thought it was too hard to build in mouse support to iOS though, every other tablet out there has it already. The apps I have on iOS are good enough for any of my needs at home. Whilst I need a more powerful computer at work, this is not necessary at home. I already have a Logitech BT keyboard for my iPads but would love a device with proper trackpad support.
Given the 2x (and now potentially 3x) graphics assets bundled into every app anything under 32 GB quickly becomes unusable for all the reasons you might actually need to purchase a smartphone. Considering the markup on flash memory this comes across as a cynical move.
Testify! Cynical, indeed!
Instead of adding a severely constricted device at the bottom of the range, how about they quit making buyers of devices with useable amounts of storage subsidize the price of low end devices? Why even bother trying to sell an 8GB device since those buyers won't contribute to ongoing revenue because they don't have ROOM for apps and music and movies!
The cost of the added flash in a top line unit is only ever-so-slightly-more-than-bupkiss and anyone who's ever purchased an SD card knows it. Charging $200 for 48GB of storage looks like avarice to the average buyer. I don't hate Apple, but I sure resent the pound of flesh they force me to render to get reasonable storage capacity in an iDevice.
Not sure how it would work, I'll leave that to Apple. Wouldn't have thought it was too hard to build in mouse support to iOS though, every other tablet out there has it already. The apps I have on iOS are good enough for any of my needs at home. Whilst I need a more powerful computer at work, this is not necessary at home. I already have a Logitech BT keyboard for my iPads but would love a device with proper trackpad support.
The issue isn't that Apple can't do it, it's why they should do it. It's not just adding mouse support but adding all the support that we find in a notebook-style traditional PC. iOS came from Mac OS X, but they removed all the parts that weren't necessary for the form factor. If anything happens I'd think it's Mac OS X (or something like it) running on an Apple A-series (ARM) chip which would bring down the cost by $200-$300 right there.
The cost of the added flash in a top line unit is only ever-so-slightly-more-than-bupkiss and anyone who's ever purchased an SD card knows it. Charging $200 for 48GB of storage looks like avarice to the average buyer. I don't hate Apple, but I sure resent the pound of flesh they force me to render to get reasonable storage capacity in an iDevice.
You want NAND to be cheaper? Fine, The 64GB iPhone is still $850 but now the 32GB model is $825 and the 16GB is $800. Would that make you happy? Of course not, because you're assuming the entry-level price point is the ideal price and everything else is a ripoff instead of trying to understand why a company would scale their devices based on NAND and why they would use $100 as a separator between different prices.
Using the example above that is inline with what you want (but not what you were thinking) Apple gets to maintain their margins. But the problem is no one will want the cheaper devices if the difference between them is so slight. It means that nearly all Phones will be sold at the 64GB capacity. That isn't logistically feasible. It also means that Apple loses out on the lower-end of their current market because their entry-level price is now $150 higher.
Now we could say that with the higher priced devices and with virtually no one buying the 16GB and 32GB models with a break-even price on the NAND that their margins per unit would be higher, and in one sense they would be, but remember that they're now losing dozens of millions of sales per quarter with this new system so economies of scale aren't working for them as well so it could be a lower profit margin, and it's certainly going to be lower total revenue and profits.
So how does a company correct this? Well they use their bean counters to figure out how many components they can get and how many they think they sell to work out the most ideal prices to maximize profits. This does not mean their goal is to screw you over because often the way to maximize profits is to increase the numbers you can sell. I have a 16GB iPhone 5S. I'll probably go to 32GB next time but only because I have an excessive amount of iMessages, not because some bitmaps are bigger for the Retina display.
The cost of the added flash in a top line unit is only ever-so-slightly-more-than-bupkiss and anyone who's ever purchased an SD card knows it. Charging $200 for 48GB of storage looks like avarice to the average buyer. I don't hate Apple, but I sure resent the pound of flesh they force me to render to get reasonable storage capacity in an iDevice.
You want NAND to be cheaper? Fine, The 64GB iPhone is still $850 but now the 32GB model is $825 and the 16GB is $800. Would that make you happy? Of course not, because you're assuming the entry-level price point is the ideal price and everything else is a ripoff instead of trying to understand why a company would scale their devices based on NAND and why they would use $100 as a separator between different prices.
Using the example above that is inline with what you want (but not what you were thinking) Apple gets to maintain their margins. But the problem is no one will want the cheaper devices if the difference between them is so slight. It means that nearly all Phones will be sold at the 64GB capacity. That isn't logistically feasible. It also means that Apple loses out on the lower-end of their current market because their entry-level price is now $150 higher.
Now we could say that with the higher priced devices and with virtually no one buying the 16GB and 32GB models with a break-even price on the NAND that their margins per unit would be higher, and in one sense they would be, but remember that they're now losing dozens of millions of sales per quarter with this new system so economies of scale aren't working for them as well so it could be a lower profit margin, and it's certainly going to be lower total revenue and profits.
So how does a company correct this? Well they use their bean counters to figure out how many components they can get and how many they think they sell to work out the most ideal prices to maximize profits. This does not mean their goal is to screw you over because often the way to maximize profits is to increase the numbers you can sell. I have a 16GB iPhone 5S. I'll probably go to 32GB next time but only because I have an excessive amount of iMessages, not because some bitmaps are bigger for the Retina display.
All perfectly reasonable, and if I'm Apple it works out very nicely, thank you. However, if you're ME, or anyone else buying anything but the entry-level device, it sucks monkey mucous. I wind up paying an artificially inflated price for storage. It may be inflated for perfectly sound reasons from a business perspective, but it still leaves a rash and painful burning sensation in the slots of MY wallet!
It makes me grumpy and I reserve the right to moan on, endlessly bitching about it. Being allowed to do that is one of the very few perks of being over 50.
I wind up paying an artificially inflated price for storage. It may be inflated for perfectly sound reasons from a business perspective, but it still leaves a rash and painful burning sensation in the slots of MY wallet!
How much would you pay if they only sold the 64GB model? Economies of scale could be bringing the price down so the higher-end model isn't as expensive as it might the on its own. I'm sure there are formulas for this but I certainly don't know them.
Not that I expect it, but I wish Apple would up the size of the base iMac from its current 21.5" to 24". After all, who buys small (sub-23") displays any more? The 27" iMac is too physically large for a lot of people, and gets pricey in a hurry once you start checking the options boxes. (We have several in the office for which we paid over $3K each.)
But we also have an older 24" iMac, and I still find it hits the sweet spot for size and usability, even if it does need a more modern, higher dpi screen.
On a related note, Apple originally showed the way in adoption of SSDs. Now they're way behind the curve in pricing of larger sizes, say over 256GB. That really needs to be fixed. the $200 adder for a 256GB SSD over the base 1TB HD is a bit salty, but not so bad that you can't go there. However a $500 adder for a 512GB SSD is crazy in today's market. I used to order the base HD and install SSDs myself, but that's mostly not an option in the "no user serviceable parts within" world.
Not that I expect it, but I wish Apple would up the size of the base iMac from its current 21.5" to 24". After all, who buys small (sub-23") displays any more? The 27" iMac is too physically large for a lot of people, and gets pricey in a hurry once you start checking the options boxes. (We have several in the office for which we paid over $3K each.)
1) I think they are big in education.
2) I'd like to see an ultra-widescreen ?31.5" 4K display which will have the same height of the 27" but be wider as to accommodate Aperture, Xcode, and many other apps better.
Comments
So, is there anything left that Apple "might" do? I think these analysts have covered every fucking permutation of every possibility, with the exception of Apple opening a grocery store chain or something.
Maybe new iPods? I would appreciate it - a new iPod Touch with specs matching the 5S, because I don't use a cell phone but I like the rest of it...
Those have all come in the late-Summer/Autumn event.
The 8g iPhone 5s will be a low priced "Beats Phone". Beats is Apple's street brand.
Those have all come in the late-Summer/Autumn event.
There was no iPod Touch release last year... I don't recall any iPod releases last year. So they could do an early release this year. You're right, though, it's more likely they'll stick to the pattern of autumn releases for music items. I was just commenting that it seems to be the one thing that hasn't been rumoured yet (not counting a grocery store chain).
There wasn't, neither were there any iPods 2 years before that. I'd say they moved to a 2-year cycle that coincidences, for the iPod Touch, to the iPhone getting a new casing design, but of course they could change that up again. The iPod Classic hasn't been updated in years so eventually the others will likely get to that same point.
iOS doesn’t use anywhere near 4 gigabytes. Stop the FUD
He was talking about storage in general. The new 8GB iPhone 5c ships with 4.9GB available to users. Apple's newly free Garage Band, iMovie, iPhoto and iWork apps together weigh in at nearly 3GB http://www.apple.com/au/iphone-5c/built-in-apps/
That leaves around 2GB according to my high school maths.
How would that work when iOS has no mechanism for controlling a mouse pointer or any of the other million features found in a notebook computer? Why wouldn't you simply want a cheaper MacBook?
Testify! Cynical, indeed!
Instead of adding a severely constricted device at the bottom of the range, how about they quit making buyers of devices with useable amounts of storage subsidize the price of low end devices? Why even bother trying to sell an 8GB device since those buyers won't contribute to ongoing revenue because they don't have ROOM for apps and music and movies!
The cost of the added flash in a top line unit is only ever-so-slightly-more-than-bupkiss and anyone who's ever purchased an SD card knows it. Charging $200 for 48GB of storage looks like avarice to the average buyer. I don't hate Apple, but I sure resent the pound of flesh they force me to render to get reasonable storage capacity in an iDevice.
The issue isn't that Apple can't do it, it's why they should do it. It's not just adding mouse support but adding all the support that we find in a notebook-style traditional PC. iOS came from Mac OS X, but they removed all the parts that weren't necessary for the form factor. If anything happens I'd think it's Mac OS X (or something like it) running on an Apple A-series (ARM) chip which would bring down the cost by $200-$300 right there.
You want NAND to be cheaper? Fine, The 64GB iPhone is still $850 but now the 32GB model is $825 and the 16GB is $800. Would that make you happy? Of course not, because you're assuming the entry-level price point is the ideal price and everything else is a ripoff instead of trying to understand why a company would scale their devices based on NAND and why they would use $100 as a separator between different prices.
Using the example above that is inline with what you want (but not what you were thinking) Apple gets to maintain their margins. But the problem is no one will want the cheaper devices if the difference between them is so slight. It means that nearly all Phones will be sold at the 64GB capacity. That isn't logistically feasible. It also means that Apple loses out on the lower-end of their current market because their entry-level price is now $150 higher.
Now we could say that with the higher priced devices and with virtually no one buying the 16GB and 32GB models with a break-even price on the NAND that their margins per unit would be higher, and in one sense they would be, but remember that they're now losing dozens of millions of sales per quarter with this new system so economies of scale aren't working for them as well so it could be a lower profit margin, and it's certainly going to be lower total revenue and profits.
So how does a company correct this? Well they use their bean counters to figure out how many components they can get and how many they think they sell to work out the most ideal prices to maximize profits. This does not mean their goal is to screw you over because often the way to maximize profits is to increase the numbers you can sell. I have a 16GB iPhone 5S. I'll probably go to 32GB next time but only because I have an excessive amount of iMessages, not because some bitmaps are bigger for the Retina display.
The cost of the added flash in a top line unit is only ever-so-slightly-more-than-bupkiss and anyone who's ever purchased an SD card knows it. Charging $200 for 48GB of storage looks like avarice to the average buyer. I don't hate Apple, but I sure resent the pound of flesh they force me to render to get reasonable storage capacity in an iDevice.
You want NAND to be cheaper? Fine, The 64GB iPhone is still $850 but now the 32GB model is $825 and the 16GB is $800. Would that make you happy? Of course not, because you're assuming the entry-level price point is the ideal price and everything else is a ripoff instead of trying to understand why a company would scale their devices based on NAND and why they would use $100 as a separator between different prices.
Using the example above that is inline with what you want (but not what you were thinking) Apple gets to maintain their margins. But the problem is no one will want the cheaper devices if the difference between them is so slight. It means that nearly all Phones will be sold at the 64GB capacity. That isn't logistically feasible. It also means that Apple loses out on the lower-end of their current market because their entry-level price is now $150 higher.
Now we could say that with the higher priced devices and with virtually no one buying the 16GB and 32GB models with a break-even price on the NAND that their margins per unit would be higher, and in one sense they would be, but remember that they're now losing dozens of millions of sales per quarter with this new system so economies of scale aren't working for them as well so it could be a lower profit margin, and it's certainly going to be lower total revenue and profits.
So how does a company correct this? Well they use their bean counters to figure out how many components they can get and how many they think they sell to work out the most ideal prices to maximize profits. This does not mean their goal is to screw you over because often the way to maximize profits is to increase the numbers you can sell. I have a 16GB iPhone 5S. I'll probably go to 32GB next time but only because I have an excessive amount of iMessages, not because some bitmaps are bigger for the Retina display.
All perfectly reasonable, and if I'm Apple it works out very nicely, thank you. However, if you're ME, or anyone else buying anything but the entry-level device, it sucks monkey mucous. I wind up paying an artificially inflated price for storage. It may be inflated for perfectly sound reasons from a business perspective, but it still leaves a rash and painful burning sensation in the slots of MY wallet!
It makes me grumpy and I reserve the right to moan on, endlessly bitching about it. Being allowed to do that is one of the very few perks of being over 50.
Now get off my lawn. Stupid kids.
Kuo a well informed analyst my ass. Over half his 2013 timeline was wrong.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE.
If it's a "nope," will there be any new hardware at this WWDC? And if not, there must be some pretty big software announcements...
How much would you pay if they only sold the 64GB model? Economies of scale could be bringing the price down so the higher-end model isn't as expensive as it might the on its own. I'm sure there are formulas for this but I certainly don't know them.
Not that I expect it, but I wish Apple would up the size of the base iMac from its current 21.5" to 24". After all, who buys small (sub-23") displays any more? The 27" iMac is too physically large for a lot of people, and gets pricey in a hurry once you start checking the options boxes. (We have several in the office for which we paid over $3K each.)
But we also have an older 24" iMac, and I still find it hits the sweet spot for size and usability, even if it does need a more modern, higher dpi screen.
On a related note, Apple originally showed the way in adoption of SSDs. Now they're way behind the curve in pricing of larger sizes, say over 256GB. That really needs to be fixed. the $200 adder for a 256GB SSD over the base 1TB HD is a bit salty, but not so bad that you can't go there. However a $500 adder for a 512GB SSD is crazy in today's market. I used to order the base HD and install SSDs myself, but that's mostly not an option in the "no user serviceable parts within" world.
1) I think they are big in education.
2) I'd like to see an ultra-widescreen ?31.5" 4K display which will have the same height of the 27" but be wider as to accommodate Aperture, Xcode, and many other apps better.