Why do Apple rumor sites give Ming-Chi Kuo so much real estate?
Maybe he’s sleeping with the entirety of the AI staff. You know, like that one gaming “journalist” who literally whored herself out to developers or whatever.
Please apple give us a micro sd slot, they are perfect for storing music, video, pictures, large apps like games, etc.
A 128 gig micro sd card is $120 and is plenty fast for a phone or tablet, and far cheaper for us consumers than paying $200 for the 96 gig difference between 32 and 128.
Please apple give us a micro sd slot, they are perfect for storing music, video, pictures, large apps like games, etc.
A 128 gig micro sd card is $120 and is plenty fast for a phone or tablet, and far cheaper for us consumers than paying $200 for the 96 gig difference between 32 and 128.
That is not happening. iCloud and network connectivity will become more ubiquitous before Apple ads any extra storage slots to their mobile devices.
That is the same wish people have had every year for 6 years. We have a pretty convincing (and sensible) rumor to the contrary.
There is no reason for Apple to change the base model.
16gb is not much storage for a device that people would potentially use to watch video or substitute an iPad mini; more memory also means more space for iTunes Music media purchases. I can see Apple increasing the base model to 32gb. They have changed base model specs before so I can see them doing it again.
That is not happening. iCloud and network connectivity will become more ubiquitous before Apple ads any extra storage slots to their mobile devices.
So you are saying it will never happen, and I agree. I don't really think that apple will ever offer a micro sd slot on any of their ios devices. But I can dream.
The unfortunate thing is that icloud and network connectivity don't come anywhere close to the reliability of on board storage. Great for backups, but 100% worthless if I'm not connected to a high speed network like LTE or wifi. Not to mention the cost of data these days.
How sweet would that be to get the 128gig new device, and then slap in another 128gigs on a micro sd?
So you are saying it will never happen, and I agree. I don't really think that apple will ever offer a micro sd slot on any of their ios devices. But I can dream.
The unfortunate thing is that icloud and network connectivity don't come anywhere close to the reliability of on board storage. Great for backups, but 100% worthless if I'm not connected to a high speed network like LTE or wifi. Not to mention the cost of data these days.
How sweet would that be to get the 128gig new device, and then slap in another 128gigs on a micro sd?
That's the thing, though. If you're using a ad card it is not onboard storage. It is semi-onboard for a period of time. Yes there are benefits but it is outweighed by the work on the processor to access the storage. It creates inefficiencies. It creates extra components in the device. And it creates extra headaches.
It was funny the first year or so. Eight years later you just look stupid saying this.
Well thanks for that. It's always so lovely when someone such as yourself personally attacks me on a forum.
Your attitude on this forum was likely funny at first. But how ever many years, and 1000's of posts later, you just look stupid writing such a childish reply.
Feel free to save both your time and the attitude, and don't respond to me next time. I'll return the favor by ignoring you as well.
That's the thing, though. If you're using a ad card it is not onboard storage. It is semi-onboard for a period of time. Yes there are benefits but it is outweighed by the work on the processor to access the storage. It creates inefficiencies. It creates extra components in the device. And it creates extra headaches.
I don't disagree, but I likely don't know as much as you do about these things.
However there are some pretty smart folks working pretty hard over there at apple and I am sure they could figure it out.
Well thanks for that. It's always so lovely when someone such as yourself personally attacks me on a forum.
Your attitude on this forum was likely funny at first. But how ever many years, and 1000's of posts later, you just look stupid writing such a childish reply.
Feel free to save both your time and the attitude, and don't respond to me next time. I'll return the favor by ignoring you as well.
No, it’s not a personal attack to explain that the iPhone won’t be getting a MicroSD slot. Don’t act foolish and I won’t have to reply.
Re: storage, I think 32/64/128 is smart & 16/64/128 is idiotic. Apple tends to be smart.
re: sapphire glass: skipping it would be idiotic.
Thing is, Apple really ought to take advantage of EVERY opportunity to steal a base from other manufacturers; they have the supply, and the foundry, absorb the cost and make everyone else struggle uphill for parity. LIKEWISE with storage: Apple's flash costs are out of the bag, and Apple needs happy campers; Apple released the 3 w/ 8gb, and the 4 & 5 w/ 16...32/64/128 brings more value to each tier, product positioning achievement unlocks, users continue to feel good about their choices.
The material the screen is made of seems less of a "performance" aspect and so:: meh.
Granted I've never had a scratch on any of my iPhones so it's easy for me to be somewhat sanguine...
Now if or when that's introduced and it's addition is shown to have positive spillover for actual device performance? Then I'll "yay" along with everyone else.
But it does then puzzle over what they're doing with all that stuff they're making with GT Advanced Technologies at whom Apple has thrown a LOT of money....
16gb is not much storage for a device that people would potentially use to watch video or substitute an iPad mini; more memory also means more space for iTunes Music media purchases. I can see Apple increasing the base model to 32gb. They have changed base model specs before so I can see them doing it again.
Then choosing that size storage would be their mistake wouldn't it? And NOT a mistake for people who correctly anticipate their on-device storage needs.
16GB low end is ridiculous given the large and growing sizes of apps. If Apple could squeeze sufficient margins out of a low end 16GB iPhone 4 years ago, surely they can squeeze the same margins out of a 32GB or even a 64GB low end today.
But this is the Apple we all know. How long did they insist on selling Macs with 2GB of RAM, despite OS X's slothfullness below 4GB of RAM?
Thus they will continue to lose market share to Android phones as more loyal Mac and iPhone users reach a breaking point. It's one thing to ask iPhone users to pay more for a superior device, but when Android phones are half the price and offer more RAM and bigger screen sizes, and all the apps most people want are also on Android, all Apple has left is iOS.
I've been sacrificing money and specs to use OS X for over a decade, and I'll keep doing so given the alternatives. But for mobile devices, there is Android, which is now pretty good (if not larded up by OEMs) and offers features not foud in iOS. Most consumers don't want to sacrifice anything to use a device, and Apple's in for a shock when they finally learn this the hard way.
the margin on the 32/64 is much higher than on the 16, because they add $100/200 per level despite much smaller component cost increases. they make more on the 32/64 than they do on the 16 -- thus they have higher margins than the 16.
That's the point, this would be higher margins on all
At the current price points. Try to change the price points and that all changes. They do not make as much money on a 32 at $199 as they do a 16. That is the point. It may only be a dollar or two difference, but that is still 10s of millions of dollars.
32gb @ $199 obviously costs Apple more than 16gb @ $199. But you're wrong still when you say 16gb is their highest margin phone- or that it would remain so.
64gb and 128gb @ your proposed $299 & $399 price points would still be higher margins than 16 @ $199.
Right, but his point is that if Apple makes the entry-level model more attractive (by giving it a very reasonable 32gb) then people are more-likely to choose that option rather than the next model up. His "higher margin" language is faulty, but his logic is sound. Except that Apple also has to worry about bargain basement buyers switching away from the iPhone. So the baseline specs have to keep moving up at some pace.
I see this point, still those that ignore upgrades will be a turnoff.
Sorry I don't see how there isn't a 32 in some way shape or form.
16 GB is Apple's highest margin storage option, and is also the lowest price iPhone, and is also the highest selling model. They aren't going to want to mess with that in anyway. People that chose this model today do so with PRICE as the primary motivator. They don't care how much storage it has....just what's the cheapest I can get the 'new' iPhone. Apple has no reason to lose a dollar to two dollars per iPhone to those people by just giving them 32 GB instead.
Some do care, but it's hard to see how important more memory may be... After all 16Gb is a whole lot of memory. For my first iPhone and iPad I bought 16Gb models because I had no idea how quickly I would top out. It turns out I need more memory, but there was no way of knowing going in.
So I'd put the value for a 16Gb model down to people wanting to enter the stream at a low cost AND not knowing how that memory will be used up due to all the apps and utility of the device. Of course, by then a person has gotten hooked on the Apple experience and will stay and likely upgrade to more memory next time.
16GB low end is ridiculous given the large and growing sizes of apps. If Apple could squeeze sufficient margins out of a low end 16GB iPhone 4 years ago, surely they can squeeze the same margins out of a 32GB or even a 64GB low end today.
But this is the Apple we all know. How long did they insist on selling Macs with 2GB of RAM, despite OS X's slothfullness below 4GB of RAM?
I'm reading this on an ancient MBP with an intel CPU and TWO Gb of memory, so your example rings hollow. Sure, Apple's base models often are underpowered for some users and just fine for many others.
Thus they will continue to lose market share to Android phones as more loyal Mac and iPhone users reach a breaking point. It's one thing to ask iPhone users to pay more for a superior device, but when Android phones are half the price and offer more RAM and bigger screen sizes, and all the apps most people want are also on Android, all Apple has left is iOS.
Apple loses market share while increasing the number of users. What's wrong with that? It's a fact of life that the market for commodity products are huge and while the high-end brands have a smaller share they also have much better profit margins.
I've been sacrificing money and specs to use OS X for over a decade, and I'll keep doing so given the alternatives. But for mobile devices, there is Android, which is now pretty good (if not larded up by OEMs) and offers features not foud in iOS. Most consumers don't want to sacrifice anything to use a device, and Apple's in for a shock when they finally learn this the hard way.
What Apple learned the hard way was that they cannot win with superior products in a race to the bottom on price. They have carefully crafted their brand to appeal to users based upon other values. Price and gee-gaw features are not among the reasons people buy Apple products. Keep this one thing in mind: Apple will not allow their products to be confused with commodity products. Every aspect of their marketing and manufacturing is pointed away from that fate.
I'm reading this on an ancient MBP with an intel CPU and TWO Gb of memory, so your example rings hollow. Sure, Apple's base models often are underpowered for some users and just fine for many others.
I'll bet you don't have many Safari tabs open and aren't trying to run Lightroom at the same time. If so, the system would be extremely frustrating to use.
Quote:
Apple loses market share while increasing the number of users. What's wrong with that?
If the exodus to Android accelerates then Apple's losing both market share and users. I agree that Apple cannot compete on commodity products, but that doesn't mean they can't add a bit more RAM on the low end. It's a minor expense that could have a profound effect on usability and thus customer satisfaction and loyality.
Base iPhone storage hasn't changed in years, while user needs grow every year. Something must give in such an equation.
Quote:
Price and gee-gaw features are not among the reasons people buy Apple products.
Agreed.
Quote:
They have carefully crafted their brand to appeal to users based upon other values.
You mean "values" as in hating on gays and fearing science? (j/k) "Branding" is for political hacks, marketing sophists, and cattle ranchers. Focus on the product, and reputation naturally follows.
Comments
Maybe he’s sleeping with the entirety of the AI staff. You know, like that one gaming “journalist” who literally whored herself out to developers or whatever.
Please apple give us a micro sd slot, they are perfect for storing music, video, pictures, large apps like games, etc.
A 128 gig micro sd card is $120 and is plenty fast for a phone or tablet, and far cheaper for us consumers than paying $200 for the 96 gig difference between 32 and 128.
That is the same wish people have had every year for 6 years. We have a pretty convincing (and sensible) rumor to the contrary.
There is no reason for Apple to change the base model.
16gb is not much storage for a device that people would potentially use to watch video or substitute an iPad mini; more memory also means more space for iTunes Music media purchases. I can see Apple increasing the base model to 32gb. They have changed base model specs before so I can see them doing it again.
That is not happening. iCloud and network connectivity will become more ubiquitous before Apple ads any extra storage slots to their mobile devices.
So you are saying it will never happen, and I agree. I don't really think that apple will ever offer a micro sd slot on any of their ios devices. But I can dream.
The unfortunate thing is that icloud and network connectivity don't come anywhere close to the reliability of on board storage. Great for backups, but 100% worthless if I'm not connected to a high speed network like LTE or wifi. Not to mention the cost of data these days.
How sweet would that be to get the 128gig new device, and then slap in another 128gigs on a micro sd?
It was funny the first year or so. Eight years later you just look stupid saying this.
It was funny the first year or so. Eight years later you just look stupid saying this.
Well thanks for that. It's always so lovely when someone such as yourself personally attacks me on a forum.
Your attitude on this forum was likely funny at first. But how ever many years, and 1000's of posts later, you just look stupid writing such a childish reply.
Feel free to save both your time and the attitude, and don't respond to me next time. I'll return the favor by ignoring you as well.
That's the thing, though. If you're using a ad card it is not onboard storage. It is semi-onboard for a period of time. Yes there are benefits but it is outweighed by the work on the processor to access the storage. It creates inefficiencies. It creates extra components in the device. And it creates extra headaches.
I don't disagree, but I likely don't know as much as you do about these things.
However there are some pretty smart folks working pretty hard over there at apple and I am sure they could figure it out.
No matter what it will be a good announcement, I just noticed on apples site they now have a countdown and show the invitation.
Your attitude on this forum was likely funny at first. But how ever many years, and 1000's of posts later, you just look stupid writing such a childish reply.
Feel free to save both your time and the attitude, and don't respond to me next time. I'll return the favor by ignoring you as well.
No, it’s not a personal attack to explain that the iPhone won’t be getting a MicroSD slot. Don’t act foolish and I won’t have to reply.
Re: storage, I think 32/64/128 is smart & 16/64/128 is idiotic. Apple tends to be smart.
re: sapphire glass: skipping it would be idiotic.
Thing is, Apple really ought to take advantage of EVERY opportunity to steal a base from other manufacturers; they have the supply, and the foundry, absorb the cost and make everyone else struggle uphill for parity. LIKEWISE with storage: Apple's flash costs are out of the bag, and Apple needs happy campers; Apple released the 3 w/ 8gb, and the 4 & 5 w/ 16...32/64/128 brings more value to each tier, product positioning achievement unlocks, users continue to feel good about their choices.
That's what they risk by going cheap.
The material the screen is made of seems less of a "performance" aspect and so:: meh.
Granted I've never had a scratch on any of my iPhones so it's easy for me to be somewhat sanguine...
Now if or when that's introduced and it's addition is shown to have positive spillover for actual device performance? Then I'll "yay" along with everyone else.
But it does then puzzle over what they're doing with all that stuff they're making with GT Advanced Technologies at whom Apple has thrown a LOT of money....
16gb is not much storage for a device that people would potentially use to watch video or substitute an iPad mini; more memory also means more space for iTunes Music media purchases. I can see Apple increasing the base model to 32gb. They have changed base model specs before so I can see them doing it again.
Then choosing that size storage would be their mistake wouldn't it? And NOT a mistake for people who correctly anticipate their on-device storage needs.
Choice is good. So is making an informed one.
16GB low end is ridiculous given the large and growing sizes of apps. If Apple could squeeze sufficient margins out of a low end 16GB iPhone 4 years ago, surely they can squeeze the same margins out of a 32GB or even a 64GB low end today.
But this is the Apple we all know. How long did they insist on selling Macs with 2GB of RAM, despite OS X's slothfullness below 4GB of RAM?
Thus they will continue to lose market share to Android phones as more loyal Mac and iPhone users reach a breaking point. It's one thing to ask iPhone users to pay more for a superior device, but when Android phones are half the price and offer more RAM and bigger screen sizes, and all the apps most people want are also on Android, all Apple has left is iOS.
I've been sacrificing money and specs to use OS X for over a decade, and I'll keep doing so given the alternatives. But for mobile devices, there is Android, which is now pretty good (if not larded up by OEMs) and offers features not foud in iOS. Most consumers don't want to sacrifice anything to use a device, and Apple's in for a shock when they finally learn this the hard way.
Most consumers don’t want to sacrifice anything to use a device...
Sales show otherwise.
Accept that it's a turn off for the buyer at $200 max price and that flash storage is much smaller then it was.
That makes more since.
That's what I'm wondering, possible 5.5 will be 32, 64, 128 but 4.7 is 16, 64, 128
That's the point, this would be higher margins on all
That is true, still can be a turnoff.
Yes, that's why it would've favored.
I see this point, still those that ignore upgrades will be a turnoff.
Some do care, but it's hard to see how important more memory may be... After all 16Gb is a whole lot of memory. For my first iPhone and iPad I bought 16Gb models because I had no idea how quickly I would top out. It turns out I need more memory, but there was no way of knowing going in.
So I'd put the value for a 16Gb model down to people wanting to enter the stream at a low cost AND not knowing how that memory will be used up due to all the apps and utility of the device. Of course, by then a person has gotten hooked on the Apple experience and will stay and likely upgrade to more memory next time.
I'm reading this on an ancient MBP with an intel CPU and TWO Gb of memory, so your example rings hollow. Sure, Apple's base models often are underpowered for some users and just fine for many others.
Apple loses market share while increasing the number of users. What's wrong with that? It's a fact of life that the market for commodity products are huge and while the high-end brands have a smaller share they also have much better profit margins.
What Apple learned the hard way was that they cannot win with superior products in a race to the bottom on price. They have carefully crafted their brand to appeal to users based upon other values. Price and gee-gaw features are not among the reasons people buy Apple products. Keep this one thing in mind: Apple will not allow their products to be confused with commodity products. Every aspect of their marketing and manufacturing is pointed away from that fate.
I'm reading this on an ancient MBP with an intel CPU and TWO Gb of memory, so your example rings hollow. Sure, Apple's base models often are underpowered for some users and just fine for many others.
I'll bet you don't have many Safari tabs open and aren't trying to run Lightroom at the same time. If so, the system would be extremely frustrating to use.
If the exodus to Android accelerates then Apple's losing both market share and users. I agree that Apple cannot compete on commodity products, but that doesn't mean they can't add a bit more RAM on the low end. It's a minor expense that could have a profound effect on usability and thus customer satisfaction and loyality.
Base iPhone storage hasn't changed in years, while user needs grow every year. Something must give in such an equation.
Agreed.
You mean "values" as in hating on gays and fearing science? (j/k) "Branding" is for political hacks, marketing sophists, and cattle ranchers. Focus on the product, and reputation naturally follows.