What's stupid about it? Should storage stay at 16GB forever? I suppose you think RAM should stay at 1GB forever too.
Your reasoning is that they should do what you want them to do because they can afford to do it. That's fucking stupid for a multitude of reasons. For starters, their goal is to maximize profits. If they can best do that by offering high capacity storage then so be it, but nothing in business says they should it because they have the money to do it. Second, you haven't considered the feasibility of being able to double the capacity of all 16GB units sold. Remember that NAND sales are already minimized, mostly because of Apple's high demand. If you honestly feel that getting 48GB more for $100 is a rip off instead of paying $100 for 16GB or $200 for 48GB you're comment even more stupid, because they didn't have to increase the 2nd and their 3rd tier options this year; they could have simply left it at 64GB or added a 4th tier of 128GB for $300 more. Of course, you didn't consider any of those options because you made your comment. Finally, you continue to ignore that components cost money and by moving them all to 32GB you're adding cost or loss of value to Apple's entry-level customers since they will try to maintain their profit margins, and since we expect Apple to keep their current retail price points the cost for the extra NAND (assuming it was readily available) would likely mean less of something else for the average customer that doesn't care about having music and movies on their iPhone, which may be less of something else across the board. So instead of being happy to have an option for an additional 48GB for $100 instead of $200 the previous year, and now an option for an additional 112GB for $200 this year, you decided to complain.
What's stupid about it? Should storage stay at 16GB forever? I suppose you think RAM should stay at 1GB forever too.
The point is that the product configuration should not be determined by cash reserves, or even past profitability. Apple is not a charity, and has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its profits, not subsidize its customers.
How much taxes did you paid last year, I bet you are in the 50% of people in this country who pay little to no taxes. You know the top 50% of the US income earners pay 98% of all the taxes the US collects. This is data published by the IRS, they know who is paying and who is not.
The only people I know complaining how much taxes anyone is paying are those who do not pay or pay very little in taxes.
Hmm, well I own my own business and pay my taxes and I pay Socisl security as well which is a killer.
Most Amrican companies pay around 10-13%. 1 in 4 pays nothing if not MAKEs money from the middle class.
Get your head out of your @ss. You and I both know they aren't paying or they wouldn't be hiding billions offshore. Come one dude no one is fooled.
I love Apple products and all these guys are doing it so Im not just ripping on them, but it's time for 'American' companies to pay the F up like the rest of us.
The point is that the product configuration should not be determined by cash reserves, or even past profitability. Apple is not a charity, and has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its profits, not subsidize its customers.
Apple are crooks for being more efficient than their competitors¡
The point is that the product configuration should not be determined by cash reserves, or even past profitability. Apple is not a charity, and has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its profits, not subsidize its customers.
Apple are crooks for being more efficient than their competitors¡
Indeed. They are crooks for doing everything better. It's just not cricket¡
The point is that the product configuration should not be determined by cash reserves, or even past profitability. Apple is not a charity, and has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its profits, not subsidize its customers.
Then why did Apple stop charging for most of its software? Isn't that subsizing its customers? This is what John Gruber wrote in his iPhone 6 review:
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.
Does the price of storage not get cheaper over time? And is it not possible to pass that on to consumers?
The point is that the product configuration should not be determined by cash reserves, or even past profitability. Apple is not a charity, and has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its profits, not subsidize its customers.
Then why did Apple stop charging for most of its software? Isn't that subsizing its customers? This is what John Gruber wrote in his iPhone 6 review:
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.
Does the price of storage not get cheaper over time? And is it not possible to pass that on to consumers?
Whatever the reason for not charging for software, it will not have been simply because they had lots of cash. Most likely they'd estimated that it would attract more users and thus increase both revenue and profits. Obviously they did not conclude that, on this occasion, with regard to iPhone memory.
The issue of component pricing is also completely unrelated to your original comment, which was, to paraphrase, that they should give more for the same price because they have so much money. If that's not what you really meant to say then you should not have written it.
You're asking what does less money on marketing, R&D, etc. than their competitors for a similarly priced item have to do with efficiency? :rolleyes:
No, I'm talking specifically about getting rid of the 32GB storage option. And it's not a similarly priced item. The iPhone ASP of $687 is way above the asp for any other smartphone. Apple's laughing all the way to the bank now. But I still agree with John Gruber that selling 16GB phones is a mistake in the long term.
In reading through all the various forums I was expecting a rash of hate and countless comments bashing Apple. I'm surprised at how calm things are.
I have to wonder if Apple did so damn good that they are in utter shock and don't really know what to say? What other reason could there be for all the haters to be so quiet today (relatively speaking)?
Whatever the reason for not charging for software, it will not have been simply because they had lots of cash. Most likely they'd estimated that it would attract more users and thus increase both revenue and profits. Obviously they did not conclude that, on this occasion, with regard to iPhone memory.
The issue of component pricing is also completely unrelated to your original comment, which was, to paraphrase, that they should give more for the same price because they have so much money. If that's not what you really meant to say then you should not have written it.
Maybe I didn't phrase it right but while Apple might be laughing all the way to the bank right now, I think it's short term thinking (as does John Gruber) . I feel in a sense they took advantage because they knew how popular these large screen phones would be. And yes I do think Apple can easily afford to bump up base storage on their flagship devices to 32GB while still making more money than any publicly traded company in the world. And still having higher smartphone ASPs than any other competitor.
They pay all taxes they are required to pay -- currently @26-28% US.
Taxes are also paid in foreign countries for earnings in those countries.
I think they pay enough, but they certainly don't pay 26% of anything. They moved the ownership of l the intellectual rights to products to Apple in Ireland (or something like that) and make minimal profits in the USA and anywhere else where there is tax. The profits are 'moved' to low tax countries like Ireland.
Whatever the reason for not charging for software, it will not have been simply because they had lots of cash. Most likely they'd estimated that it would attract more users and thus increase both revenue and profits. Obviously they did not conclude that, on this occasion, with regard to iPhone memory.
The issue of component pricing is also completely unrelated to your original comment, which was, to paraphrase, that they should give more for the same price because they have so much money. If that's not what you really meant to say then you should not have written it.
Maybe I didn't phrase it right but while Apple might be laughing all the way to the bank right now, I think it's short term thinking (as does John Gruber) . I feel in a sense they took advantage because they knew how popular these large screen phones would be. And yes I do think Apple can easily afford to bump up base storage on their flagship devices to 32GB while still making more money than any publicly traded company in the world. And still having higher smartphone ASPs than any other competitor.
Fair enough - but now you just appear to be saying that you and Gruber know better than Apple management how to make their business work. On the face of it, that would appear to be an extraordinarily arrogant assumption in a market where Apple has, to put it mildly, demonstrated substantial success. And, to be clear, I'm sure that their goal is not to stop at "making more money than any publicly traded company in the world", but rather to continue to make as much as they can.
Comments
What's stupid about it? Should storage stay at 16GB forever? I suppose you think RAM should stay at 1GB forever too.
Doomed.
Obviously.
Your reasoning is that they should do what you want them to do because they can afford to do it. That's fucking stupid for a multitude of reasons. For starters, their goal is to maximize profits. If they can best do that by offering high capacity storage then so be it, but nothing in business says they should it because they have the money to do it. Second, you haven't considered the feasibility of being able to double the capacity of all 16GB units sold. Remember that NAND sales are already minimized, mostly because of Apple's high demand. If you honestly feel that getting 48GB more for $100 is a rip off instead of paying $100 for 16GB or $200 for 48GB you're comment even more stupid, because they didn't have to increase the 2nd and their 3rd tier options this year; they could have simply left it at 64GB or added a 4th tier of 128GB for $300 more. Of course, you didn't consider any of those options because you made your comment. Finally, you continue to ignore that components cost money and by moving them all to 32GB you're adding cost or loss of value to Apple's entry-level customers since they will try to maintain their profit margins, and since we expect Apple to keep their current retail price points the cost for the extra NAND (assuming it was readily available) would likely mean less of something else for the average customer that doesn't care about having music and movies on their iPhone, which may be less of something else across the board. So instead of being happy to have an option for an additional 48GB for $100 instead of $200 the previous year, and now an option for an additional 112GB for $200 this year, you decided to complain.
The point is that the product configuration should not be determined by cash reserves, or even past profitability. Apple is not a charity, and has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its profits, not subsidize its customers.
They pay all taxes they are required to pay -- currently @26-28% US.
Taxes are also paid in foreign countries for earnings in those countries.
HAHA Sure. 26-28%? Are you serious?!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/apple-offshore-taxes_n_3307591.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/01/so-how-much-tax-did-apple-pay/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2013/05/28/how-does-apple-avoid-taxes/
And these are old BTW.
Most big Americans corps pay around 10-13% at best and 1 in 4 pays ZERO if not actually making money from the middle class.
And I love apple products BTW so I'm not just ripping on them. All these guys do it and it needs to end for ALL of them.
How much taxes did you paid last year, I bet you are in the 50% of people in this country who pay little to no taxes. You know the top 50% of the US income earners pay 98% of all the taxes the US collects. This is data published by the IRS, they know who is paying and who is not.
The only people I know complaining how much taxes anyone is paying are those who do not pay or pay very little in taxes.
Hmm, well I own my own business and pay my taxes and I pay Socisl security as well which is a killer.
Most Amrican companies pay around 10-13%. 1 in 4 pays nothing if not MAKEs money from the middle class.
Get your head out of your @ss. You and I both know they aren't paying or they wouldn't be hiding billions offshore. Come one dude no one is fooled.
I love Apple products and all these guys are doing it so Im not just ripping on them, but it's time for 'American' companies to pay the F up like the rest of us.
Apple are crooks for being more efficient than their competitors¡
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Apple pays more in taxes than any other company in the nation.
Anyone care to do the research on this?
Google it. Nope.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/04/apple-paid-low-overseas-tax
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/05/21/apple-called-a-tax-dodger-by-senate-committee-apple-says-system-needs-to-be-dramatically-simplified/
Tons of articles if for some reason these don't 'do it for you.'
And again, not ripping just on Apple. All these 'American' companies do it and it need to end for ALL of them.
Indeed. They are crooks for doing everything better. It's just not cricket¡
Try something a little more comprehensive and up to date, and then perhaps rethink your comments.
http://wallethub.com/edu/2013-corporate-tax-report/6768/
Then why did Apple stop charging for most of its software? Isn't that subsizing its customers? This is what John Gruber wrote in his iPhone 6 review:
Does the price of storage not get cheaper over time? And is it not possible to pass that on to consumers?
What does this have to do with efficiency? It's all about driving up ASP and gross margins which Apple did this quarter.
You're asking what does less money on marketing, R&D, etc. than their competitors for a similarly priced item have to do with efficiency? :rolleyes:
Whatever the reason for not charging for software, it will not have been simply because they had lots of cash. Most likely they'd estimated that it would attract more users and thus increase both revenue and profits. Obviously they did not conclude that, on this occasion, with regard to iPhone memory.
The issue of component pricing is also completely unrelated to your original comment, which was, to paraphrase, that they should give more for the same price because they have so much money. If that's not what you really meant to say then you should not have written it.
No, I'm talking specifically about getting rid of the 32GB storage option. And it's not a similarly priced item. The iPhone ASP of $687 is way above the asp for any other smartphone. Apple's laughing all the way to the bank now. But I still agree with John Gruber that selling 16GB phones is a mistake in the long term.
In reading through all the various forums I was expecting a rash of hate and countless comments bashing Apple. I'm surprised at how calm things are.
I have to wonder if Apple did so damn good that they are in utter shock and don't really know what to say? What other reason could there be for all the haters to be so quiet today (relatively speaking)?
Maybe I didn't phrase it right but while Apple might be laughing all the way to the bank right now, I think it's short term thinking (as does John Gruber) . I feel in a sense they took advantage because they knew how popular these large screen phones would be. And yes I do think Apple can easily afford to bump up base storage on their flagship devices to 32GB while still making more money than any publicly traded company in the world. And still having higher smartphone ASPs than any other competitor.
They pay all taxes they are required to pay -- currently @26-28% US.
Taxes are also paid in foreign countries for earnings in those countries.
I think they pay enough, but they certainly don't pay 26% of anything. They moved the ownership of l the intellectual rights to products to Apple in Ireland (or something like that) and make minimal profits in the USA and anywhere else where there is tax. The profits are 'moved' to low tax countries like Ireland.
Whatever the reason for not charging for software, it will not have been simply because they had lots of cash. Most likely they'd estimated that it would attract more users and thus increase both revenue and profits. Obviously they did not conclude that, on this occasion, with regard to iPhone memory.
The issue of component pricing is also completely unrelated to your original comment, which was, to paraphrase, that they should give more for the same price because they have so much money. If that's not what you really meant to say then you should not have written it.
Maybe I didn't phrase it right but while Apple might be laughing all the way to the bank right now, I think it's short term thinking (as does John Gruber) . I feel in a sense they took advantage because they knew how popular these large screen phones would be. And yes I do think Apple can easily afford to bump up base storage on their flagship devices to 32GB while still making more money than any publicly traded company in the world. And still having higher smartphone ASPs than any other competitor.
Fair enough - but now you just appear to be saying that you and Gruber know better than Apple management how to make their business work. On the face of it, that would appear to be an extraordinarily arrogant assumption in a market where Apple has, to put it mildly, demonstrated substantial success. And, to be clear, I'm sure that their goal is not to stop at "making more money than any publicly traded company in the world", but rather to continue to make as much as they can.