'iPhone 6s' said to ship with 2GB of RAM, Apple leaning toward including Apple SIM

Posted:
in iPhone edited March 2015
Apple's 2015 iPhone update will purportedly add some features introduced in the iPad Air 2 last year, including an upgrade to 2 gigabytes of RAM and the possibility of pre-installing the Apple SIM, giving users the ability to select a carrier on their own out of the box.




A person familiar with Apple's future product plans, who has provided reliable information in the past, indicated to AppleInsider that the so-called "iPhone 6s," and presumably the Plus version as well, will in fact be upgraded to 2 gigabytes of RAM. Apple has used a single gigabyte of RAM in its iPhone lineup dating back to the iPhone 5, which launched in 2012.

It was earlier that same year that Apple introduced one gigabyte of RAM in its custom A-series CPUs with the third-generation iPad with Retina display. It's expected that Apple will follow the same approach again, bringing iPad memory upgrades to the next iPhone, since the iPad Air 2 included 2 gigabytes of RAM embedded in its A8X chip last year.

Additional RAM would allow iOS to leave background tasks and tabs in Safari open for longer without a need to reload or refresh. But additional RAM can also come with costs to battery life, as memory constantly consumes power.

The same source also told AppleInsider that Apple is strongly considering shipping its next-generation handset with the Apple SIM pre-installed. That piece, which also made its debut with the iPad Air 2, allows consumers to sign up for mobile data plans from any participating carrier directly from the Settings app without long-term contracts and to switch providers at any time.

Such a move would likely meet staunch resistance from wireless carriers, who have forced Apple to scrap similar plans in the past. Even those carriers that signed on to support the Apple SIM in the iPad Air 2 placed limitations on its usefulness when not purchased directly from Apple, and leading U.S. carrier Verizon abstained entirely.

Competition among carriers has been increasingly fierce in recent years, as the airwaves become relatively commoditized and consumers less brand-loyal. Presumably, carriers will be reticent to cede a direct sales relationship with customers, perhaps more so than they were when Apple first floated its virtual SIM idea in 2010.




"The operators are accusing Apple of trying to gain control of their relationship with their mobile customers with the new SIM," the Financial Times reported then. That opinion is not likely to have changed.

What has changed is Apple's position in the market. The iPhone is now the most popular consumer product since the microwave, making it impossible for carriers to ignore.

If Apple does decide to ship the Apple SIM in the new iPhone, carriers are unlikely to eschew support completely -- as Verizon has done until now. Rather, the balance of probability tilts in favor of AT&T-style "dedication," in which handsets purchased from carriers would be locked to that network, but those purchased unlocked directly from Apple would be free to pick-and-choose plans at will.

If Apple follows its usual annual release schedule, the next-generation iPhone models should be announced in September, and will be released to the public soon after. It's expected that the new devices will focus on under-the-hood changes, as Apple's "S" upgrades tend to leave the exterior of the handset largely unchanged from its predecessor.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 87
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    2GB RAM is no brainer. Now all we need is bump 16GB to 32GB. If Apple is all about delivering the best products and user experience that should be a no brainer too.
  • Reply 2 of 87
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,728member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post





    "The operators are accusing Apple of trying to gain control of their relationship with their mobile customers with the new SIM," 



    Dear Mr. Operators.  You had years to attempt a mutually-beneficial relationship with your mobile customers prior to the iPhone.  Instead, you took every opportunity to gouge and milk your customer for everything.  You have failed miserably.  You provide the "dumb pipe".  That is the only relationship I - and many - mobile users have with you.  I do not want anything more from you.  You will not get anything more from me.  Do that, and do it right, and you'll keep my business.  Fail me, and I will look elsewhere... easily.



    We can all thank Apple for blazing the way, wrestling control away from the telecoms and back to the consumer.  Everyone - including Fandroids - should be grateful for the disruption that Apple has introduced to what was once a stranglehold.

  • Reply 3 of 87
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     



    We can all thank Apple for blazing the way, wrestling control away from the telecoms and back to the consumer.  Everyone - including Fandroids - should be grateful for the disruption that Apple has introduced to what was once a stranglehold.


    Yep. Especially since Google tried to perpetuate the carrier stranglehold by giving them what they wanted. This is why, even today, carriers push Android phones like crazy.

     

     

     

    I don't know if the carriers can fight ?SIM now. They're weakening on a number of fronts.

  • Reply 4 of 87
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     



    Dear Mr. Operators.  You had years to attempt a mutually-beneficial relationship with your mobile customers prior to the iPhone.  Instead, you took every opportunity to gouge and milk your customer for everything.  You have failed miserably.  You provide the "dumb pipe".  That is the only relationship I - and many - mobile users have with you.  I do not want anything more from you.  You will not get anything more from me.  Do that, and do it right, and you'll keep my business.  Fail me, and I will look elsewhere... easily.



    We can all thank Apple for blazing the way, wrestling control away from the telecoms and back to the consumer.  Everyone - including Fandroids - should be grateful for the disruption that Apple has introduced to what was once a stranglehold.




    Yes. Lets forward this to cable /DLS internet providers as well and hope Apple has a way to shake up the 'dumb pipes' there.

  • Reply 5 of 87
    adrayvenadrayven Posts: 460member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    why stop at 32GB?  Why not 128GB?  That would be an even better user experience.  What about drop the price by $200?  even better?

     

    /s

     

    When will people learn.  Apple needs high margins to keep the eco-sytem and R&D and customer service running at a top level.

     

    IF YOU WANT TO PLAY YOU GOTTA PAY.

    YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

     

    If you want cheap shit go buy android.




    Meh.. I would not be surprised if Apple makes 32Gb the standard, bumps middle to 128, and 256 the high end. MAINLY when they start pushing 4k Video and Photos that will happen..

     

    Unlikely will happen with the 6s, likely the iPhone 7.. By then 4k, in ~2 years, should be fairly standard... 

  • Reply 6 of 87
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    why stop at 32GB?  Why not 128GB?  That would be an even better user experience.  What about drop the price by $200?  even better?

    /s

    When will people learn.  Apple needs high margins to keep the eco-sytem and R&D and customer service running at a top level.

    IF YOU WANT TO PLAY YOU GOTTA PAY.
    YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

    If you want cheap shit go buy android.

    Bullshit. Last quarter Apple's profit was $18B. Apple is doing the largest corporate buyback in history because it's swimming in cash and have way more than necessaey to successfully run the company. i'm not worried about Apple not having enough cash to fund R&D and operations.
  • Reply 7 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,030member
    sog35 wrote: »
    why the hell would you need 4k resolution on a 5 inch device.  pure stupidity

    Why do you need 2k? Why 2,560k, which some phones have now? The reason is marketing. No one can see 400ppi, and surely no one can see 500, but screen makers are making them, and phone manufacturers are using them.
  • Reply 8 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,030member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Bullshit. Last quarter Apple's profit was $18B. Apple is doing the largest corporate buyback in history because it's swimming in cash and have way more than necessaey to successfully run the company. i'm not worried about Apple not having enough cash to fund R&D and operations.

    That's partly true. But Apple makes good profits. $18 billion is a record for anyone, but given Apple's size, it's not excessive either. Their net is about 21%, which is very good, but again, not excessive.

    People think that they can drop their prices easily. They really can't. If they drop prices by 10%, that would drop their net more than 10%, perhaps 12%. Then their margins would be just about 10%. For technology companies that are doing well, that's not great. They would have to stop offering free services such as iWork, etc. it would become a different company.
  • Reply 9 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,030member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Why the hell 4k.  All you will do is tax the CPU and battery.  Total and utter BS.  

    Apple is not about BS.  That's why they didn't do 4k screen and why stupid ass Samsung is.

    I agree, that's why I pointed out that it was just marketing

    In the case of Samsung, it's more complex. They use OLED with Pentile to increase brightness. That lowers the effective resolution by a good 25%. So they use a higher resolution screen to make up for that. If we read reviews, we see that Pentile screens are called coarse looking. Moving the resolution up eliminates that. So they need a screen with 400 PPI to look like an LCD screen with 325 PPI, and a screen with 500 PPI to look like an LCD screen with 400PPI.
  • Reply 10 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,030member
    sog35 wrote: »
    exactly.

    Moving to 32GB base model will hurt the amount of mid and high memory units sold.

    I've said it many times before:  Those who buy the 64GB and 128GB models are subsidizing those who buy the 16GB model.  If Apple sold iPhones at a fixed Gross Margin the prices would be like this:

    16GB $725
    64GB $760
    128GB $790

    Is that what you want?

    Not what I want. I think that the base model has the lowest fixed costs, which require Apple to sell it for $649, and make their margins on the sale.

    But NAND pricing isn't as low as thought by most people. I keep saying that. What I constantly see is people looking at a cheap usb stick, and thinking that NAND should cost no more than that. But that's all wrong. That's cheap, and very slow, low quality memory. We need to look at the pricing of the fastest SD card memory that are used for cameras. That's much closer to the memory in a good phone. And that's expensive!

    The reason why Apple has 90% of the profits in the cell industry isn't because Apple overcharges on their phones, or even the memory. It's bwcause other companies are giving it away for cost. That's wrong. Manufacturing pricing requires that parts are charged to the buyer of the product for at least double the price they were bought for by the manufacturer. And three times isn't considered to be excessive.

    We don't know Apple's pricing, but If they're buying high quality, fast NAND, then they could be paying as much as $35 per 64GB. If so, then they're pricing is at the high end of the range, but within it. We don't know though. It could be that the base model is priced below their average margins, and the more expensive models brings that back up again to their goal.

    I've read that Samsung's new S6 with 32GB might cost $749, and the Edge might be $849. I did read today that in Soain, the S6 would go for the equivalent of $840. Why? Perhaps it's more expensive to manufacture a high quality phone than most people expect.if so, then making it up on NAND, makes sense.
  • Reply 11 of 87
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    why the hell would you need 4k resolution on a 5 inch device.  pure stupidity


     

    Perhaps there are situations in which someone would like to share something over airplay to an aTV that's connected to a 4k monitor....

  • Reply 12 of 87

    Let's pray that Apple takes a leaf out of Samsung's playbook and makes 32GB the base storage capacity, so as to avoid a repeat of UpdateGate.

  • Reply 13 of 87
    inklinginkling Posts: 731member
    Pick and choose is great when you move. In Seattle, I was happy with T-Mobile coverage. Metro-Seattle is, after all, the company's corporate headquarters.

    But when I moved to a small college town far away, T-Mobile coverage was virtually non-existent. I switched to AT&T, but it was only slightly better. Half my calls didn't connect even when I stepped outside.. I finally solved my woes by getting Verizon iPhone 5 that's working out fine. It's also factory-unlocked, so I can transfer it to any carrier, should I move again or need to travel extensively.

    Experiences like that mean consumers are getting smarter. Pick and choose is the future. The smarter cell-phone companies will recognize that and adapt.
  • Reply 14 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,030member
    sog35 wrote: »
    I still don't see Apple doing 4k for marketing reasons.

    It will severly hurt battery life and those panels are much more expensive.  It is impossible to tell the difference between a 2k and 4k screen that is 5 inches from normal viewing distances.

    Apple would much rather make the phone lighter or have a longer battery life than increase the resolution for marketing reasons.

    I'm not saying that Apple would. Look, they could have given us a higher Rez screen on the 6+ this year. According to reviews in Anandtech, there's a penalty in performance in Apple's method of bringing the resolution above 1920p, and then calculating it down to that (that's the triple size requirements Apple set for developers for graphics). If they used a higher Rez screen that would show that Rez directly, as John Gruber thought they would, that performance penalty, which is very apparent in testing and gaming, wouldn't occur. In addition, the power penalty would about equalize out because of the considerably less graphics calculations needed.

    So Apple does what they want.
  • Reply 15 of 87
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    Pick and choose is great when you move. In Seattle, I was happy with T-Mobile coverage. Metro-Seattle is, after all, the company's corporate headquarters.



     

     

    Your poem was going great, then you lost it. ;)

  • Reply 16 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,030member
    Let's pray that Apple takes a leaf out of Samsung's playbook and makes 32GB the base storage capacity, so as to avoid a repeat of UpdateGate.

    And charge $749 for that, as Samsung seems to be doing now?
  • Reply 17 of 87
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    2GB RAM is no brainer. Now all we need is bump 16GB to 32GB. If Apple is all about delivering the best products and user experience that should be a no brainer too.



    Though they're not exactly equivalent as there's no range of options on the 1GB of RAM while there are for the storage.

  • Reply 18 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,030member
    sog35 wrote: »

    Its a know fact that the 64GB and 128GB models have higher margins than the 16GB models.

    So if you want FIXED gross margin across the product line (for people who grumble of paying $99 for more memory) the 16GB model price would have to be SIGNIFICANLY HIGHER. 

    Where is that "known" fact from? Apple doesn't tell us. It's assumed by writers, some analysts, and iSuppli, who knows nothing about Apple pricing. But we don't "know" it.

    And I'm not saying it isn't true, I stated that it might be, but we don't know it for a fact. What you have to know about manufacturing is that charging two or three times for a part doesn't get you that back as profit. There are costs involved, which is why they increase the price by those amounts.
  • Reply 19 of 87
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    why stop at 32GB?  Why not 128GB?  That would be an even better user experience.  What about drop the price by $200?  even better?

     

    /s

     

    When will people learn.  Apple needs high margins to keep the eco-sytem and R&D and customer service running at a top level.

     

    IF YOU WANT TO PLAY YOU GOTTA PAY.

    YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

     

    If you want cheap shit go buy android.




    Amen brother.  You are spot on.

  • Reply 20 of 87
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,455member

    Why couldn’t the top tech companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft) cooperate on a new cellular network to compete against AT&T and Verizon? Form a consortium and buy Sprint or T-Mobile or both. Still make your phones available to the existing carriers but offer the enhanced services and features that the big carriers refuse to offer. 

Sign In or Register to comment.