Apple ditches 32GB capacity for iPhone 6, offers storage sizes of 16, 64 & 128GB starting at $199

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 50

    This is by far the most infuriating thing Apple has ever done to me.  16gb standard?  When they know people are already struggling with the limited quantity and when they're adding a camera that takes even larger size higher res photos and 60FPS VIDEO??  Deplorable.

  • Reply 42 of 50
    Originally Posted by Josh King View Post

    This is by far the most infuriating thing Apple has ever done to me.

     

    You should sue them for battery, psychological distress, and emotional trauma.

     

    When they know people are already struggling with the limited quantity


     

    Apparently this isn’t happening.

     

    …and when they’re adding a camera that takes even larger size higher res photos…


     

    Same resolution. Better quality.

     

    …and 60FPS VIDEO??  Deplorable.


     

    How DARE they give us great features?!

  • Reply 43 of 50
    h2ph2p Posts: 268member
    If I have an iPhone 5 16gb which was bought on-contract in 2012 and in 2 years I have accumulated apps, photos, music and videos making the device almost full, I now have to cut corners and manage my content to get the entry level iPhone 6/6+.

    Else, pay up Apple a $100 premium in addition to the contract fees to feel secure.
    How is that not arm-twisting Joe the consumer?
    That is exactly my situation, where I have an iPhone 5 16GB, the contract has ended and I want to get the iPhone 6. But I'm getting the 64GB iPhone 6 for the price of the 32GB. I am thrilled! This is a fantastic development as far as I can see. Are you upset because they didn't make 32GB the standard entry level?
  • Reply 44 of 50
    Wasn't Apple supposed to upgrade the memory? It's what used to happen in the past, for example when the base model had 8GB and then it changed to 16GB. At this point, the base should be 32GB, or even 64GB. So I'll upgrade from 4S to 6 and still have the same memory from 2 years ago? That feels like a rip off, Apple.
  • Reply 45 of 50
    rgjac wrote: »
    ...the base should be...

    That's where you lost me.
  • Reply 46 of 50
    Originally Posted by rgjac View Post

    Wasn't Apple supposed to upgrade the memory?



    They did.

     

    It’s what used to happen in the past…


     

    And continued to happen.

  • Reply 47 of 50
    solipsismx wrote: »
    That's where you lost me.
    Entry-level, memory at the base level, that's what I meant. The minimum amount of memory a device requires to work as expected. 16GB as the entry-level memory for the 4th generation of a device while memory prices have gone down doesn't feel right, and eliminating the 32GB model is no doubt a plan to make people pay more, what wouldn't happen if the entry-level were that one.
  • Reply 48 of 50
    rgjac wrote: »
    Entry-level, memory at the base level, that's what I meant. The minimum amount of memory a device requires to work as expected. 16GB as the entry-level memory for the 4th generation of a device while memory prices have gone down doesn't feel right, and eliminating the 32GB model is no doubt a plan to make people pay more, what wouldn't happen if the entry-level were that one.

    Your entire premise is illogical which is why you think a company should be doing something based on criteria that you invented. If you don't want 16GB than pay about $2 more per GB to get 64GB. Those are your options.

    A for-profit company should be doing what it can to maximize profits. That's it. Now we argue the risks involved in doing short term gains of cheap, illegal dumping of toxic chemicals (What was that movie with John Travolta?) or tainting a brand with poor upgrades at inflated prices like we saw with Apple in the 90's, but I'm not seeing any of that today with Apple.
  • Reply 49 of 50
    I don't think I'm being illogical at all, or inventing premises, it seems to be the common thought all over the place, even here in this forum. If the pattern is one of storage requirements doubling every few years, why would one expect otherwise? There's no way images and videos increase in size and amount, connection speeds increase tremendously (and so does the data plan's GBs used) and the amount of storage stays the same after two years.

    No doubt some for-profit companies will do everything to get our hard-earned money, but there's a thin line which, if crossed, can do an incredible amount of damage. Does it matter for Apple at this point? In my view (obviously not shared by many) it's the best phone around, so people will buy it anyway. But still, the perception of what a company does to succeed can last a lifetime, and can make a difference when it's not the only choice anymore.
  • Reply 50 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Not at all. They know how many of their 16 GB sell, and they know how many of their 64 GB sell. The numbers are like an inverse bell curve–the middle model sells the fewest. If the low end hadn’t been selling, they’d’ve upped the capacity. It is. They didn’t.

     


    Statistics aside, Apple is now dangling a carrot in front of the consumer. Apple probably get user data through iTunes and they can figure out how many of them have the 16gb model (4, 4S, 5, 5C or 5S) and how many of them are bordering close to the max capacity. Then they can force these users to pony up $100 bucks more than they would normally do ($199) to "feel better" about their new phone rather than offering a base model (which most of these users would normally get) with more capacity.

     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    To the customer, it will appear as though they have simply excised that middle model and dropped the price of the big one. And the added benefit of seeing 4x capacity for 100 more where before it was 2x should upsell pretty well.

     

    Then by that logic the next model should be priced at just $50 more or I should get 256 GB for $100 more.

Sign In or Register to comment.