The lawsuit should have been against all manufacturers. Like in the screen size lawsuit 20 years ago.
This is more the fault with the SW developers, not the manufactures, since metric had establish those terms well before the computer industry started using them.
1) Why, when 16GB is more than enough for a huge number of users? Do you really want your 64GB and 128GB models to either be more expensive or offer less as a result so that Apple can make their profit margin while a huge users are getting more space than they'll need?
2) In 2007 the default storage was 4GB and then 8GB. 16GB for the new iPhone is fine.
Apple would still make HUGE profits offering 32GB as entry level storage. One of the reasons iOS 8 adoption has been slow(er) is because 16GB isn't fine for a lot of people. Just over the holidays I was at a party where someone was complaining about not being able to update their software because of not enough storage. These days it's very easy to set up and use an iOS device without ever needing iTunes and updating software OTA is much more convenient than doing it via iTunes. Just like the iPad Air 2 got 2GB RAM I'll bet any money Apple will up entry level storage to 32GB and the new iPhones will have 2GB RAM. Apple will not want to go through another year of people complaining on Twitter (and elsewhere) that they don't have enough storage to update their software. If that doesn't happen then it's clear that Tim Cook's Apple puts profits over user experience and I do think that will eventually come back to bite him.
16GB shouldn't be offered anymore and neither should 1GB RAM. Thats just greed pure and simple.
Why shouldn't they? There is a segment of the market (corporate, for example), whose needs are satisfied perfectly by devices bearing those specifications. As they do offer a financial discount, albeit minor, consider if a company is purchasing a few hundred, even a few thousand units, the savings add up. At the law firm I used to work at, 16GB iPhone 5/5S units were the de facto standard, as they were managed by MDM software and pre-loaded with the firms' apps. 32GB wasn't needed, and would've been a waste. The only 32/64GB units in the fleet were the ones that individual partners paid out-of-pocket for a better version.
This whole argument against 16GB units is quite laughable in my eyes, especially when you look at competing devices using Windows Phone and Android, many of whom ship base configurations starting with 8GB, and many only going to 16GB storage.
Apple makes $8B in a quarter and I'm the one who's greedy?
Let's see, you want them to give you something for free, and they use efficient practices and economies of scale to help turn a profit. Yes, you're the greedy one.
If you honestly think that Apple is asking too much for their products that they can't seem to keep on the shelves then go ahead and show them by not buying them, but don't suggest they simply give you stuff for free.
Why shouldn't they? There is a segment of the market (corporate, for example), whose needs are satisfied perfectly by devices bearing those specifications. As they do offer a financial discount, albeit minor, consider if a company is purchasing a few hundred, even a few thousand units, the savings add up. At the law firm I used to work at, 16GB iPhone 5/5S units were the de facto standard, as they were managed by MDM software and pre-loaded with the firms' apps. 32GB wasn't needed, and would've been a waste. The only 32/64GB units in the fleet were the ones that individual partners paid out-of-pocket for a better version.
This whole argument against 16GB units is quite laughable in my eyes, especially when you look at competing devices using Windows Phone and Android, many of whom ship base configurations starting with 8GB, and many only going to 16GB storage.
Talk about a double standard...
I'm not aware of any flagship Android phones starting with 8GB. Maybe something like the Moto G does but I wouldn't compare that with an iPhone 6.
The $699 Galaxy Note 4 starts at 32GB with expandable storage up to 128GB
The $599 Galaxy S5 starts at 16GB but supports expandable storage up to 128GB
The $579 LG G3 starts at 32GB with expandable storage up to 128GB
Motorola is now offering a 64GB version of the Moto X for $599
The 16GB iPhone 6 Plus is $749
The 16GB iPhone 6 is $649
So in several cases you're paying a $50 premium for less storage. I get that there might be business or schools that don't need more than 16GB. Fine I have no problem with Apple offering businesses or schools that option. But for everyone elsei I think it's ridiculous that Apple is keeping entry level storage at 16GB just so they can upsell people into a more expensive model (and raise average selling prices of course).
I'm not aware of any flagship Android phones starting with 8GB. Maybe something like the Moto G does but I wouldn't compare that with an iPhone 6.
And? Those devices have a shitload of 3rd-party SW installed atop Android which gives them a lot less space for the user with their default builds compared to iOS-based devices. This is also why they need more RAM to do the same basic tasks.
Fine I have no problem with Apple offering businesses or schools that option. But for everyone elsei I think it's ridiculous that Apple is keeping entry level storage at 16GB just so they can upsell people into a more expensive model (and raise average selling prices of course).
So you've concluded that everyone that doesn't need 32GB should be paying for anyway. That's nice of you¡
Let's see, you want them to give you something for free, and they use efficient practices and economies of scale to help turn a profit. Yes, you're the greedy one.
If you honestly think that Apple is asking too much for their products that they can't seem to keep on the shelves then go ahead and show them by not buying them, but don't suggest they simply give you stuff for free.
So how come Apple had no problem offering 64GB for the price of 32GB? Is that giving people stuff for free? Why is that OK but offering 32GB for the price of 16GB isn't (yes this is a rhetorical question)?
Of course we all know why Apple chose 16 > 64 instead of 32 > 64. So they can upsell people to the 64GB models and raise ASPs. You know for only $100 more you get 4x the storage! Phil Schiller and the bean counters at Apple aren't stupid. They know if 32GB was the entry level storage that's what a majority of people would be buying. So don't offer it and instead upsell people getting them to spend $100 more.
Just curious, is John Gruber greedy too? Last year he posted:
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.
Of course we all know why Apple chose 16 > 64 instead of 32 > 64. So they can upsell people to the 64GB models and raise ASPs. You know for only $100 more you get 4x the storage! Phil Schiller and the bean counters at Apple aren't stupid. They know if 32GB was the entry level storage that's what a majority of people would be buying. So don't offer it and instead upsell people getting them to spend $100 more.
1) You're calling a company greedy for offering you more expensive options for more money. Makes perfect sense¡
2) If Apple was truly being "greedy" then why not simply charge you $100 for 32GB, then another $100 for 64GB and yet another $100 for 128GB? I would have paid the same amount for the 32GB model instead of buying the 64GB model, and over half the people I helped get into an iPhone 6 series would have stayed on the 16GB model.
3) Your logic is flawed because you continually fail to see how the iPhone category is priced for the market. This means that demand is taken into account. You think $100 for 16GB more is wrong but you haven't said about it being 48GB and 64GB more, instead you flipped your argument to say that the minimum should be 32GB because 16GB isn't enough for anyone which then forces the buyer into the middle tier. You aren't forced to do shit so stop acting like it's some burden.
And? Those devices have a shitload of 3rd-party SW installed atop Android which gives them a lot less space for the user with their default builds compared to iOS-based devices. This is also why they need more RAM to do the same basic tasks.
And my iPhone 6 came with 2.7GB of preinstalled Apple apps that I don't use. Do you have a list of the "shitload" of 3rd party software installed atop Android on the LG G3 and Moto X pure edition?
So you've concluded that everyone that doesn't need 32GB should be paying for anyway. That's nice of you¡
Well using your logic Apple has concluded that those who don't need 64GB should pay for it anyway. Why do you think 64GB for the price of 32GB is a-ok but 32GB for the price of 16GB is not?
1) You're calling a company greedy for offering you more expensive options for more money. Makes perfect sense¡
2) If Apple was truly being "greedy" then why not simply charge you $100 for 32GB, then another $100 for 64GB and yet another $100 for 128GB? I would have paid the same amount for the 32GB model instead of buying the 64GB model, and over half the people I helped get into an iPhone 6 series would have stayed on the 16GB model.
3) Your logic is flawed because you continually fail to see how the iPhone category is priced for the market. This means that demand is taken into account. You think $100 for 16GB more is wrong but you haven't said about it being 48GB and 64GB more, instead you flipped your argument to say that the minimum should be 32GB because 16GB isn't enough for anyone which then forces the buyer into the middle tier. You aren't forced to do shit so stop acting like it's some burden.
Yes I think Apple is being greedy when it comes to iOS storage options. I know I'm certainly not the only one.
A balance must be struck between healthy profit margins and making good products. I don’t think Apple has ever only made good products,1 but the introduction of “Are you sure?” models has only come to iPhones and iPads in recent years — the first few generations of iOS devices (and iPods) were all high-end when they came out.
And until this year, the “Are you sure?” iOS devices were just older models that got pushed down the product line over time with embarrassingly low storage sizes, like 8 GB.2 But iOS, cameras, and apps have progressed to the point that even 16 GB devices are now constrained, exacerbated by iOS’ poor user storage management. This is the first year that Apple’s flagship iOS devices are available in sizes that will often result in poor user experiences.
Not long ago, we could just tell our friends and family to buy “an iPhone” or “an iPad”, unqualified. They were all great.
Now, if our parents call us and say, “We just got an iPad!”, we need to think, Oh no, which one did they get? Please don’t be one of the shitty ones…
And here's what Gruber said about iOS storage when reviewing the new iPads:
Apple should not be selling 16 GB iPads. The starting tier for typical consumers should be 32 GB. There’s just not enough usable space on a 16 GB iOS device to do the things Apple has worked so hard to make easy to do. …
I also understand the product marketing angle. That there are a lot of people who will look at the 16 GB models, see that they can get four times the storage for just $100 more, and buy the 64 GB model instead — when they would’ve bought the base model if it were 32 GB. I get it. There’s no doubt in my mind it’s good short-term business sense to go with a 16/64/128 lineup instead of 32/64/128. But Apple is not a short-term business. They’re a long-term business, built on a relationship of trust with repeat customers. 16 GB iPads work against the foundation of Apple’s brand, which is that they only make good products.
Apple has long used three-tier pricing structures within individual product categories. They often used to label them “Good”, “Better”, and “Best”. Now, with these 16 GB entry-level devices, it’s more like “Are you sure?”, “Better”, and “Best”.
Okay, worst case scenario, to make the class action lawsuit go away. Apple can just offer free icloud storage to users base on their version of iOS!!! So iPhone 6 user gets additional 3.3GB....so on!!
Has merit or not, Regardless...this is a stupid lawsuit. These people are looking for free money!!
What's next!!?? Free App are not free anymore because they take up storage spaces, too. For example, Real Racing 3 takes up approx 2.3GB!! Holy Shit, that is some 400 pictures worth of storage space!!!
These people should sue all the Free App writer/companies because these apps take up storage space too. For example, Real Racing 3 takes up some 2.3GB, holy mother lord, that is some 400 pictures worth of storage space!!!
I'm not defending the lawsuit. But do I think they have a point and that Apple should be more forthright? Yes.
The fact that everyone else is as bad a Apple (or usually much worse) doesn't change the point.
You could say it about a number of aspects of the device. You won't get the full amount of RAM free either but it's known how much RAM the device has. You won't get the full size of the screen at all times due to the status bar or dock but they tell you the screen resolution. You get a certain camera sensor but the lens might not give you the full potential of the sensor. They tell you the battery capacity but your battery life will vary based on usage. There isn't an easy way to advertise the free amount of storage because it changes with different operating systems. If they launch a device with one iOS but then change to one with a larger footprint, they'd have to change all the marketing material. It will become less of an issue the more the entry storage increases.
It might have been a supply issue. Apple uses Hynix NAND in the iPad and NAND has been constrained due to the fire in 2013. I'd expect the lowest storage sizes of a model to be the largest unit seller.
16GB isn't such a huge limitation. I've personally never used enough to max out 16GB on iOS. I have dozens of ebooks, a few apps, some music.
More storage for the same price is always better for the buyer though and if they can improve NAND density for the same costs, they'll upgrade it. When dealing with a rollout of over 200 million units in a single year, you have to take into consideration if manufacturers can actually give you all the parts you need.
Comments
And that's all it needs to say.
This is more the fault with the SW developers, not the manufactures, since metric had establish those terms well before the computer industry started using them.
I agree, but on your part.
Apple would still make HUGE profits offering 32GB as entry level storage. One of the reasons iOS 8 adoption has been slow(er) is because 16GB isn't fine for a lot of people. Just over the holidays I was at a party where someone was complaining about not being able to update their software because of not enough storage. These days it's very easy to set up and use an iOS device without ever needing iTunes and updating software OTA is much more convenient than doing it via iTunes. Just like the iPad Air 2 got 2GB RAM I'll bet any money Apple will up entry level storage to 32GB and the new iPhones will have 2GB RAM. Apple will not want to go through another year of people complaining on Twitter (and elsewhere) that they don't have enough storage to update their software. If that doesn't happen then it's clear that Tim Cook's Apple puts profits over user experience and I do think that will eventually come back to bite him.
This whole argument against 16GB units is quite laughable in my eyes, especially when you look at competing devices using Windows Phone and Android, many of whom ship base configurations starting with 8GB, and many only going to 16GB storage.
Talk about a double standard...
Apple makes $8B in a quarter and I'm the one who's greedy?
Let's see, you want them to give you something for free, and they use efficient practices and economies of scale to help turn a profit. Yes, you're the greedy one.
If you honestly think that Apple is asking too much for their products that they can't seem to keep on the shelves then go ahead and show them by not buying them, but don't suggest they simply give you stuff for free.
I'm not aware of any flagship Android phones starting with 8GB. Maybe something like the Moto G does but I wouldn't compare that with an iPhone 6.
The $699 Galaxy Note 4 starts at 32GB with expandable storage up to 128GB
The $599 Galaxy S5 starts at 16GB but supports expandable storage up to 128GB
The $579 LG G3 starts at 32GB with expandable storage up to 128GB
Motorola is now offering a 64GB version of the Moto X for $599
The 16GB iPhone 6 Plus is $749
The 16GB iPhone 6 is $649
So in several cases you're paying a $50 premium for less storage. I get that there might be business or schools that don't need more than 16GB. Fine I have no problem with Apple offering businesses or schools that option. But for everyone elsei I think it's ridiculous that Apple is keeping entry level storage at 16GB just so they can upsell people into a more expensive model (and raise average selling prices of course).
And? Those devices have a shitload of 3rd-party SW installed atop Android which gives them a lot less space for the user with their default builds compared to iOS-based devices. This is also why they need more RAM to do the same basic tasks.
So you've concluded that everyone that doesn't need 32GB should be paying for anyway. That's nice of you¡
So how come Apple had no problem offering 64GB for the price of 32GB? Is that giving people stuff for free? Why is that OK but offering 32GB for the price of 16GB isn't (yes this is a rhetorical question)?
Of course we all know why Apple chose 16 > 64 instead of 32 > 64. So they can upsell people to the 64GB models and raise ASPs. You know for only $100 more you get 4x the storage! Phil Schiller and the bean counters at Apple aren't stupid. They know if 32GB was the entry level storage that's what a majority of people would be buying. So don't offer it and instead upsell people getting them to spend $100 more.
Just curious, is John Gruber greedy too? Last year he posted:
http://daringfireball.net/2014/09/the_iphones_6
1) You're calling a company greedy for offering you more expensive options for more money. Makes perfect sense¡
2) If Apple was truly being "greedy" then why not simply charge you $100 for 32GB, then another $100 for 64GB and yet another $100 for 128GB? I would have paid the same amount for the 32GB model instead of buying the 64GB model, and over half the people I helped get into an iPhone 6 series would have stayed on the 16GB model.
3) Your logic is flawed because you continually fail to see how the iPhone category is priced for the market. This means that demand is taken into account. You think $100 for 16GB more is wrong but you haven't said about it being 48GB and 64GB more, instead you flipped your argument to say that the minimum should be 32GB because 16GB isn't enough for anyone which then forces the buyer into the middle tier. You aren't forced to do shit so stop acting like it's some burden.
And my iPhone 6 came with 2.7GB of preinstalled Apple apps that I don't use. Do you have a list of the "shitload" of 3rd party software installed atop Android on the LG G3 and Moto X pure edition?
Well using your logic Apple has concluded that those who don't need 64GB should pay for it anyway. Why do you think 64GB for the price of 32GB is a-ok but 32GB for the price of 16GB is not?
Yes I think Apple is being greedy when it comes to iOS storage options. I know I'm certainly not the only one.
http://www.marco.org/2014/10/22/df-ipad-air-2
And here's what Gruber said about iOS storage when reviewing the new iPads:
http://daringfireball.net/2014/10/ipad_air_2
Gruber is 100% right.
Okay, worst case scenario, to make the class action lawsuit go away.
Apple can just offer free icloud storage to users base on their version of iOS!!!
So iPhone 6 user gets additional 3.3GB....so on!!
Has merit or not, Regardless...this is a stupid lawsuit. These people are looking for free money!!
What's next!!??
Free App are not free anymore because they take up storage spaces, too. For example, Real Racing 3 takes up approx 2.3GB!! Holy Shit, that is some 400 pictures worth of storage space!!!
Seriously!!??
These people should sue all the Free App writer/companies because these apps take up storage space too. For example, Real Racing 3 takes up some 2.3GB, holy mother lord, that is some 400 pictures worth of storage space!!!
Perhaps you should format first.
A greed.
Cook boobed with the 16GB.
He took a leaf out of Apple's wilderness years and decided to put margins over user experience, anathema to Apple's core.
Let's all hope that someone gives him another ice bucket challenge, so that he can come to his senses and make 32GB the minimum size.
I blame Schiller and the bean counters. Of course Cook signs off on everything so ultimately the buck stops with him.
You could say it about a number of aspects of the device. You won't get the full amount of RAM free either but it's known how much RAM the device has. You won't get the full size of the screen at all times due to the status bar or dock but they tell you the screen resolution. You get a certain camera sensor but the lens might not give you the full potential of the sensor. They tell you the battery capacity but your battery life will vary based on usage. There isn't an easy way to advertise the free amount of storage because it changes with different operating systems. If they launch a device with one iOS but then change to one with a larger footprint, they'd have to change all the marketing material. It will become less of an issue the more the entry storage increases.
It might have been a supply issue. Apple uses Hynix NAND in the iPad and NAND has been constrained due to the fire in 2013. I'd expect the lowest storage sizes of a model to be the largest unit seller.
16GB isn't such a huge limitation. I've personally never used enough to max out 16GB on iOS. I have dozens of ebooks, a few apps, some music.
More storage for the same price is always better for the buyer though and if they can improve NAND density for the same costs, they'll upgrade it. When dealing with a rollout of over 200 million units in a single year, you have to take into consideration if manufacturers can actually give you all the parts you need.