Upselling people to 64GB by removing the 32GB option is another way to increase margins, no?
So you think they increase their margins by charging the same $100 and $200 for a 48GB and 112GB increase, respectively, as they did for a 16GB and 48GB update? Where is the logic in that? Are they getting more people to buy the higher capacity devices because the cost to quantify difference has much increased, absolutely, but it's not some evil plan.
So you think they increase their margins by charging the same $100 and $200 for a 48GB and 112GB increase, respectively, as they did for a 16GB and 48GB update? Where is the logic in that? Are they getting more people to buy the higher capacity devices because the cost to quantify difference has much increased, absolutely, but it's not some evil plan.
Whether you want to call it an evil plan or not clearly there's a reason Apple went from 16 > 32 to 16 > 64 instead of 32 > 64. If it has nothing to do with margins or raising ASPs then why not make 32GB base storage (except maybe in certain B2B cases where 16GB is sufficient). Apple can say you get 4x the storage for only $100 more when a lot of consumers would say how about double the storage for the same price? Or do the prices of memory never come down?
Whether you want to call it an evil plan or not clearly there's a reason Apple went from 16 > 32 to 16 > 64 instead of 32 > 64. If it has nothing to do with margins or raising ASPs then why not make 32GB base storage (except maybe in certain B2B cases where 16GB is sufficient). Apple can say you get 4x the storage for only $100 more when a lot of consumers would say how about double the storage for the same price? Or do the prices of memory never come down?
That took less teeth pulling than I expected. Now we know that your problem isn't that they gave you a considerable bump in storage for same categorical price point, but that the lowest price point still retained the 16GB storage. If you don't like it then don't fucking buy it, but don't imply Apple's up to some nefarious skullduggery by creating a wider capacity margins for their devices; just be happy you have that option or don't buy Apple products.
Getting the big guy down on one knee is the first major hurdle. It's interesting to me that Apple differs in that it's rise has meant the collapse of so many formerly market-leading competitors. I don't know of another business that has been responsible for so much disruption of competition in multiple spheres. Microsoft's rise certainly spelled the end for a few competitors in the CPM market, and some software businesses along the way, but nothing of the magnitude of Apple coming into the smartphone business and, over a period of years, decimating the businesses of Nokia and Blackberry (two of, if not the, leading companies in that realm), or the magnitude of the shift in the PC market with the rise of the iPad, defining the post-PC era, or the wholesale restructuring of the music business in the era of the iPod. Getting this company to its knees will be some feat of competitive prowess.
Apple's also unique in that they've been downed once before, this is their second go-round. That's unique in this sector, I can't think of another company that was so down and out that managed to come back so strongly.
And the biggest news to me, is that Apple seems poised to keep rising. They've already laid the foundation for several nice services and health kit attacks Android at its core - because Apple has a better track record with security and privacy. Tim Cook is hitting his stride. iOS 8 is maturing. I'm not sure what to think of the Apple watch - because people only have so much disposable income, but that may do amazing as well. Thank goodness Apple has Johnny Ive and Tim Cook. I've seen this historic rise coming for a while - and told others the same even when they weren't sure about Tim cook. Apple is still growing.
dude, none of us live forever so whats your point.
Um... it may not matter much to you, but bequests (and "intergenerational transfers of wealth" as economist refer to it) are quite an important factor in the utility functions and investment behaviors of many well-off people.
There's a ton of economics and finance literature around this, and perhaps you'll learn something if you browsed some of it.
That took less teeth pulling than I expected. Now we know that your problem isn't that they gave you a considerable bump in storage for same categorical price point, but that the lowest price point still retained the 16GB storage. If you don't like it then don't fucking buy it, but don't imply Apple's up to some nefarious skullduggery by creating a wider capacity margins for their devices; just be happy you have that option or don't buy Apple products.
All I'm saying is I think Apple could easily make 32GB the base storage for their iOS devices. They had no problem making software free or spending a huge chunk of change giving iOS device owner a free U2 album. One of the reasons upgrades iOS 8 have been slow is because a lot of 16GB owners didn't have enough space on their files to install it. And since Apple offers OTA updates people shouldn't have to use iTunes to install software updates just because Apple is miserly with storage.
Which in turn brings to mind one of the closing paragraphs of my review of the new iPhones 6:
But I don’t understand why the entry level storage tier remained at a meager 16 GB. That seems downright punitive given how big panoramic photos and slo-mo HD videos are, and it sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at the three storage tiers together: 32/64/128 looks natural; 16/64/128 looks like a mistake. The original iPhone, seven years and eight product generations ago, had an 8 GB storage tier. The entry-level iPhones 6 are 50 times faster than that original iPhone, but have only twice the storage capacity. That’s just wrong. This is the single-most disappointing aspect of the new phones.
iOS itself takes up about 4 GB, so these 16 GB devices only have about 12 GB free right out of the box. If there is any way that Apple could have brought the base model storage up to 32 GB with the new iPhones, they should have. And it’s inexcusable that they’re still selling new devices with only 8 GB of storage.
If this decision was made simply in the interest of profit margins, and/or to nudge would-be entry-level-model buyers to the more expensive 64 GB mid-range models, whatever money Apple is making from this is not worth it, in the long run, compared to the collective goodwill they’re losing and the frustration they’re creating.
Anyone with a functioning brain knows this is all about profit margins and increasing ASPs.
All I'm saying is I think Apple could easily make 32GB the base storage for their iOS devices.
They could increase it to 64GB, etc. Your comment is pointless except to bitch and moan about the one thing they didn't do whilst ignoring everything they did do.
They had no problem making software free or spending a huge chunk of change giving iOS device owner a free U2 album.
Again, you have no point.
One of the reasons upgrades iOS 8 have been slow is because a lot of 16GB owners didn't have enough space on their files to install it.
And? The OS is larger, people are using their devices more, especially for iMessage-based media (which didn't have the timed deletes until iOS 8), 5Mpx images, 1080p video, and the OTA updates need a swap space which wasn't an issue pre-OTA updates. So if someone has a 32GB, 64GB model with no more room you'd pooh-pooh Apple for not offering an 128GB, 256GB, etc. if the customer exceeded their usable limit for an OTA update? Of course, you're just complaining.
And since Apple offers OTA updates people shouldn't have to use iTunes to install software updates just because Apple is miserly with storage.
If they exceed the space needed to complete an OTA update then they need to delete content or plug it into iTunes… and they still need to have a certain of space remaining.
Anyone with a functioning brain knows this is all about profit margins and increasing ASPs.
And yet you think it's a nefarious plot without once considering 1) the option Apple had of maintaining 16, 32, and 64GB models and then adding an 128GB model to the end for $300-400 more which I know a lot of people would buy because they fear of running out, have to have the best/most, or like to carry every song they own obtained with them, 2) that Apple being the largest NAND supplier in the world has to consider resources against buying patterns, 3) that the 16GB — which is more than enough for 5 people I helped get into an iPhone 6 series because they don't store media or play games — is a sweet spot for a large number of their customer base, or 4) that the entry level price of the 16GB helps keep the more expensive model prices down when you consider the entire category as a whole (but first you've have to consider that $1.85-$2.08 per GB is a whole lot better than $4.16-$6.25 per GB).
Yes, we AI fanboys want Apple to thrive forever but it is, after all, a business. Think of every well known, iconic, successful tech business and they all had their day in the sun, stumbled, recovered, stumbled again, and so forth (Microsoft, HP, Dell, Sony, Blackberry, Nokia, IBM). Apple has an unparalleled management team at this time, is firing on all cylinders, can do almost no wrong, and has a loyal customer base that other CEOs would sell their grandmothers into slavery to have. I hope it continues for a long time but nothing is forever. The long knives are always out, waiting for the stumble and the opportunity to attack the big guy when he’s down on one knee.
The long knives have been out against Apple since its existence, and have only gotten longer, sharper, and more venemous with time. However, as long as Apple keeps doing what it's doing, which is create the best products in the world, it can very well break many of these "laws" that some seem to think are set in stone, which is that successful companies cannot stay successful for very long periods of time. I have yet to see a real threat, in terms of a company producing products of such quality and care, along with the software and ecosystem to support them, and with the right cultural thos. Noone even comes close. As for the stock, yes I expect it to keep bouncing around. But there's no reason Apple needs to "fall". People have been predicting this since Steve Jobs return, and it hasn't happened.
Yep.
The greatest danger to Apple is more likely to come from within than without. Sadly, the Apple Watch is shaping up to be Apple's first major stumbling block since Jobs returned to Apple.
As an AAPL buy and hold investor since 2007 I think the company is poised to hold its gains and climb to 150ish in 2015. It won't be straight up! The stock is probably a little ahead of itself now, will encounter downward resistance, and experience incremental pullbacks and reversals. The pipeline feels as solid as it did during the march from 600-700 but is more diversified today. Tim Cook has rectified most of the vulnerabilities I once criticized him for and I am now one of his biggest evangelists. His hires prove he doesn't have to be the smartest guy/gal in the room although he probably is.
OK, speculation time...
Who will be the next president and what will their business experience (or lack thereof) do for the economic fortunes of the U.S.?
Steve Ballmer. He will create an economic boom for makers of phones with physical keyboards.
They could increase it to 64GB, etc. Your comment is pointless except to bitch and moan about the one thing they didn't do whilst ignoring everything they did do.
Again, you have no point.
And? The OS is larger, people are using their devices more, especially for iMessage-based media (which didn't have the timed deletes until iOS 8), 5Mpx images, 1080p video, and the OTA updates need a swap space which wasn't an issue pre-OTA updates. So if someone has a 32GB, 64GB model with no more room you'd pooh-pooh Apple for not offering an 128GB, 256GB, etc. if the customer exceeded their usable limit for an OTA update? Of course, you're just complaining.
If they exceed the space needed to complete an OTA update then they need to delete content or plug it into iTunes… and they still need to have a certain of space remaining.
And yet you think it's a nefarious plot without once considering 1) the option Apple had of maintaining 16, 32, and 64GB models and then adding an 128GB model to the end for $300-400 more which I know a lot of people would buy because they fear of running out, have to have the best/most, or like to carry every song they own obtained with them, 2) that Apple being the largest NAND supplier in the world has to consider resources against buying patterns, 3) that the 16GB — which is more than enough for 5 people I helped get into an iPhone 6 series because they don't store media or play games — is a sweet spot for a large number of their customer base, or 4) that the entry level price of the 16GB helps keep the more expensive model prices down when you consider the entire category as a whole (but first you've have to consider that $1.85-$2.08 per GB is a whole lot better than $4.16-$6.25 per GB).
Yes I do have a point and it's the same point John Gruber has: 16GB in this day and age is ridiculous. People's devices are filling up faster with apps, music, slow mo video etc. plus the OS install file keeps getting larger. A great user experience would be recognizing this and increasing storage, not making people spend time removing things from their device so they have just enough space to install the software updates.
Yes I do have a point and it's the same point John Gruber has: 16GB in this day and age is ridiculous. People's devices are filling up faster with apps, music, slow mo video etc. plus the OS install file keeps getting larger. A great user experience would be recognizing this and increasing storage, not making people spend time removing things from their device so they have just enough space to install the software updates.
No. A great user experience would to recognize the space you need, not to say "i want x-space so I think everyone should also pay for it regardless of what they need."
Again, I have multiple family members and a friend that couldn't update to iOS 8 due to some unknown bug that are using less 8GiB (including iOS) on their iPhone and iPad. I know this because I either A) updated them, resolved issues with them, and/or C) did a check before I helped them purchase an iPhone 6 series. Only person that was on a 16GB iPhone did I recommend getting 64GB because they were close to their limit that another 2 years might have pushed their limits with an assumed increase of iOS 10 being as much as 3GiB.
So tel me again why they should be forced to get more capacity then they will ever need on that device?
Yes I do have a point and it's the same point John Gruber has: 16GB in this day and age is ridiculous. People's devices are filling up faster with apps, music, slow mo video etc. plus the OS install file keeps getting larger. A great user experience would be recognizing this and increasing storage, not making people spend time removing things from their device so they have just enough space to install the software updates.
No. A great user experience would to recognize the space you need, not to say "i want x-space so I think everyone should also pay for it regardless of what they need."
Again, I have multiple family members and a friend that couldn't update to iOS 8 due to some unknown bug that are using less 8GiB (including iOS) on their iPhone and iPad. I know this because I either A) updated them, resolved issues with them, and/or C) did a check before I helped them purchase an iPhone 6 series. Only person that was on a 16GB iPhone did I recommend getting 64GB because they were close to their limit that another 2 years might have pushed their limits with an assumed increase of iOS 10 being as much as 3GiB.
So tel me again why they should be forced to get more capacity then they will ever need on that device?
I'm with Rogifan on this.
I've come across casual users, who are the kind more likely to buy the 16GB. They can't update to iOS 8 over the air due to lack of space, and they don't even realise it can be updated using iTunes.
No. A great user experience would to recognize the space you need, not to say "i want x-space so I think everyone should also pay for it regardless of what they need."
Again, I have multiple family members and a friend that couldn't update to iOS 8 due to some unknown bug that are using less 8GiB (including iOS) on their iPhone and iPad. I know this because I either A) updated them, resolved issues with them, and/or C) did a check before I helped them purchase an iPhone 6 series. Only person that was on a 16GB iPhone did I recommend getting 64GB because they were close to their limit that another 2 years might have pushed their limits with an assumed increase of iOS 10 being as much as 3GiB.
So tel me again why they should be forced to get more capacity then they will ever need on that device?
I had the issue where Other ended up taking up all my free space, but a back and restore did the trick. This was something else where the OTA update would fail without a specific error, it wouldn't show up on attains on her iMac (which is my 27" iMac that I sold her), all while having plenty of space. I did show up on my MBP but the update still didn't work despite showing free space so I backed up and restored, which worked. I was surprised that PDFs she had in iBooks were neither backed up to iiBooks in iCloud or were backed up locally when I did the backup. Is this another glitch or does it not bother with PDFs?
Comments
So you think they increase their margins by charging the same $100 and $200 for a 48GB and 112GB increase, respectively, as they did for a 16GB and 48GB update? Where is the logic in that? Are they getting more people to buy the higher capacity devices because the cost to quantify difference has much increased, absolutely, but it's not some evil plan.
Whether you want to call it an evil plan or not clearly there's a reason Apple went from 16 > 32 to 16 > 64 instead of 32 > 64. If it has nothing to do with margins or raising ASPs then why not make 32GB base storage (except maybe in certain B2B cases where 16GB is sufficient). Apple can say you get 4x the storage for only $100 more when a lot of consumers would say how about double the storage for the same price? Or do the prices of memory never come down?
That took less teeth pulling than I expected. Now we know that your problem isn't that they gave you a considerable bump in storage for same categorical price point, but that the lowest price point still retained the 16GB storage. If you don't like it then don't fucking buy it, but don't imply Apple's up to some nefarious skullduggery by creating a wider capacity margins for their devices; just be happy you have that option or don't buy Apple products.
Getting the big guy down on one knee is the first major hurdle. It's interesting to me that Apple differs in that it's rise has meant the collapse of so many formerly market-leading competitors. I don't know of another business that has been responsible for so much disruption of competition in multiple spheres. Microsoft's rise certainly spelled the end for a few competitors in the CPM market, and some software businesses along the way, but nothing of the magnitude of Apple coming into the smartphone business and, over a period of years, decimating the businesses of Nokia and Blackberry (two of, if not the, leading companies in that realm), or the magnitude of the shift in the PC market with the rise of the iPad, defining the post-PC era, or the wholesale restructuring of the music business in the era of the iPod. Getting this company to its knees will be some feat of competitive prowess.
Apple's also unique in that they've been downed once before, this is their second go-round. That's unique in this sector, I can't think of another company that was so down and out that managed to come back so strongly.
Gibsmedat will explain it.
dude, none of us live forever so whats your point.
Um... it may not matter much to you, but bequests (and "intergenerational transfers of wealth" as economist refer to it) are quite an important factor in the utility functions and investment behaviors of many well-off people.
There's a ton of economics and finance literature around this, and perhaps you'll learn something if you browsed some of it.
Here's something to get you started.
I'm not. I'm criticizing them for not doing the same at the low end.
All I'm saying is I think Apple could easily make 32GB the base storage for their iOS devices. They had no problem making software free or spending a huge chunk of change giving iOS device owner a free U2 album. One of the reasons upgrades iOS 8 have been slow is because a lot of 16GB owners didn't have enough space on their files to install it. And since Apple offers OTA updates people shouldn't have to use iTunes to install software updates just because Apple is miserly with storage.
Hell even John Gruber thinks 16GB is ridiculous.
Anyone with a functioning brain knows this is all about profit margins and increasing ASPs.
They could increase it to 64GB, etc. Your comment is pointless except to bitch and moan about the one thing they didn't do whilst ignoring everything they did do.
Again, you have no point.
And? The OS is larger, people are using their devices more, especially for iMessage-based media (which didn't have the timed deletes until iOS 8), 5Mpx images, 1080p video, and the OTA updates need a swap space which wasn't an issue pre-OTA updates. So if someone has a 32GB, 64GB model with no more room you'd pooh-pooh Apple for not offering an 128GB, 256GB, etc. if the customer exceeded their usable limit for an OTA update? Of course, you're just complaining.
If they exceed the space needed to complete an OTA update then they need to delete content or plug it into iTunes… and they still need to have a certain of space remaining.
And yet you think it's a nefarious plot without once considering 1) the option Apple had of maintaining 16, 32, and 64GB models and then adding an 128GB model to the end for $300-400 more which I know a lot of people would buy because they fear of running out, have to have the best/most, or like to carry every song they
ownobtained with them, 2) that Apple being the largest NAND supplier in the world has to consider resources against buying patterns, 3) that the 16GB — which is more than enough for 5 people I helped get into an iPhone 6 series because they don't store media or play games — is a sweet spot for a large number of their customer base, or 4) that the entry level price of the 16GB helps keep the more expensive model prices down when you consider the entire category as a whole (but first you've have to consider that $1.85-$2.08 per GB is a whole lot better than $4.16-$6.25 per GB).Getting close to that $165 milestone.
I'd like that too.
Yep.
The greatest danger to Apple is more likely to come from within than without. Sadly, the Apple Watch is shaping up to be Apple's first major stumbling block since Jobs returned to Apple.
Steve Ballmer. He will create an economic boom for makers of phones with physical keyboards.
He did until 2007.
Yes I do have a point and it's the same point John Gruber has: 16GB in this day and age is ridiculous. People's devices are filling up faster with apps, music, slow mo video etc. plus the OS install file keeps getting larger. A great user experience would be recognizing this and increasing storage, not making people spend time removing things from their device so they have just enough space to install the software updates.
No. A great user experience would to recognize the space you need, not to say "i want x-space so I think everyone should also pay for it regardless of what they need."
Again, I have multiple family members and a friend that couldn't update to iOS 8 due to some unknown bug that are using less 8GiB (including iOS) on their iPhone and iPad. I know this because I either A) updated them,
So tel me again why they should be forced to get more capacity then they will ever need on that device?
I'm with Rogifan on this.
I've come across casual users, who are the kind more likely to buy the 16GB. They can't update to iOS 8 over the air due to lack of space, and they don't even realise it can be updated using iTunes.
32GB should be the minimum.
Maybe this is the bug they have.
http://imore.com/what-other-storage-category-iphone-and-ipad-and-how-fix-it
I had the issue where Other ended up taking up all my free space, but a back and restore did the trick. This was something else where the OTA update would fail without a specific error, it wouldn't show up on attains on her iMac (which is my 27" iMac that I sold her), all while having plenty of space. I did show up on my MBP but the update still didn't work despite showing free space so I backed up and restored, which worked. I was surprised that PDFs she had in iBooks were neither backed up to iiBooks in iCloud or were backed up locally when I did the backup. Is this another glitch or does it not bother with PDFs?