But now the 64GB model is only $100 more instead of $200, so Apple is losing billions.
WTH are you talking about? Where are you getting this $200 figure from?
Before the iPhone 6 the tiers were 16GB($650 USD) , 32GB($750 USD), and 64GB($850 USD). To get the 64GB model meant one had to pay $200 more than the 16GB model, now it's only $100 more. That’s WTH I'm getting the $200 from.
Before the iPhone 6 the tiers were 16GB($650 USD) , 32GB($750 USD), and 64GB($850 USD). To get the 64GB model meant one had to pay $200 more than the 16GB model, now it's only $100 more. That’s WTH I'm getting the $200 from.
So you're saying Apple is giving people a great deal by giving them far more storage while keeping the same $100 price difference.
Before the iPhone 6 the tiers were 16GB($650 USD) , 32GB($750 USD), and 64GB($850 USD). To get the 64GB model meant one had to pay $200 more than the 16GB model, now it's only $100 more. That’s WTH I'm getting the $200 from.
So you're saying Apple is giving people a great deal by giving them far more storage while keeping the same $100 price difference.
Sure it's a great deal but they're losing billions in the process.
factually wrong. iPhone average selling price is up about 10% since moving the mid-tier to 64GB.
In this whole ridiculous "Apple is greedy which is why they made the up-sell more appealing with 48Gb instead of just 16GB" argument with the proof being the increase in the APR, I didn't see any mention on the iPhone 6 Plus having a $100 premium over the iPhone 6.
Why don't you answer the question as to why Apple chose to lose billions by making the second tier 64GB instead of 32GB.
What makes you so certain they lost billions?
The same way they'd lose billions if they went from 16GB to 32GB. I personally don't think they would but that's [@]sog35[/@]'s rationale. Logic, and cause and effect can't be applied arbitrarily to one's liking.
The same way they'd lose billions if they went from 16GB to 32GB. I personally don't think they would but that's [@]sog35[/@]'s rationale. Logic, and cause and effect can't be applied arbitrarily to one's liking.
You mean starting the lowest tier at 32GB instead of 16GB? If so, then you fail to understand the meaning for the tiers and customer needs.
You can't lose billions on a sale you wouldn't have had if you didn't change the tier. Just assume they magically have numbers that show a percentage increase in the 64gb model sales from last years tier and that increase vastly outweighs a slight increase in costs. You know... Business!
The same way they'd lose billions if they went from 16GB to 32GB. I personally don't think they would but that's [@]sog35[/@]'s rationale. Logic, and cause and effect can't be applied arbitrarily to one's liking.
You mean starting the lowest tier at 32GB instead of 16GB? If so, then you fail to understand the meaning for the tiers and customer needs.
I understand quite well. I also understand that the 16GB model is sufficient for some people's needs at the time of purchase but needs change, the OS is only getting bigger as are apps. In 2 years time a 16GB is most likely going to be almost useless yet there are going to be millions upon millions of them in circulation. A move to 32GB would've given the phone usefulness for years to come.
The same way they'd lose billions if they went from 16GB to 32GB. I personally don't think they would but that's [@]sog35[/@]'s rationale. Logic, and cause and effect can't be applied arbitrarily to one's liking.
No you are wrong. I'm using actual sales and FACTS. The facts prove that Apple moving the mid tier to 64 GB helped ASP.
But go ahead and keep living in your dream world of hypotheticals.
You probably think Apple lost billions for not making the base phone 8 GB. Idiotts.
Answer this. Did more people go to the 64GB because it's 64GB or because 16GB was too little? If they would've gone to the second tier regardless if it was 32GB or 64GB then Apple indeed lost money. Had they stayed with 32GB for the second tier then the ASP would've been higher.
I understand quite well. I also understand that the 16GB model is sufficient for some people's needs at the time of purchase but needs change, the OS is only getting bigger as are apps. In 2 years time a 16GB is most likely going to be almost useless yet there are going to be millions upon millions of them in circulation. A move to 32GB would've given the phone usefulness for years to come.
I understand quite well. I also understand that the 16GB model is sufficient for some people's needs at the time of purchase but needs change,
You say that, and you don't understand why it would be advantageous for Apple to keep the eatery-level tier at 16GB and then make the next two tiers a 48 and 64GB difference instead of having a 16 and 32GB or 16, 32, and 64GB larger for a $100 difference. My guess is you're seeing all customers as the same, instead of seeing from Apple's PoV where they are trying to maximize sales across all aspects of a given market.
...the OS is only getting bigger as are apps.
Nope.
In 2 years time a 16GB is most likely going to be almost useless yet there are going to be millions upon millions of them in circulation.
Nope.
A move to 32GB would've given the phone usefulness for years to come.
Of course giving the customers more storage would allow for more storage, but that's argument to make and [@]sog35[/@] never once said that more storage doesn't equate to more storage.
In Western culture, and perhaps a part of human makeup, the Power of Three or Rule of Three is pervasive. Look it up.
It's possibility as to why Apple decided to jump from 32GB to 64GB for the middle tier when introducing the 128GB model, because 4 tiered options in capacity was less ideal when they crunched the numbers. And while we've been conditioned to think that all such things should double,, those still complaining that spending $100 for 16GB and $100 for another 32GB, instead of $100 for 48GB and $100 for another 64GB, are idiots.
Comments
Before the iPhone 6 the tiers were 16GB($650 USD) , 32GB($750 USD), and 64GB($850 USD). To get the 64GB model meant one had to pay $200 more than the 16GB model, now it's only $100 more. That’s WTH I'm getting the $200 from.
So you're saying Apple is giving people a great deal by giving them far more storage while keeping the same $100 price difference.
Sure it's a great deal but they're losing billions in the process.
Sure it's a great deal but they're losing billions in the process.
So you know how much flash storage costs Apple and the mix of sales for every device to make this claim?
Everyone else makes baseless claims, so I'm just following their lead.
Everyone else makes baseless claims, so I'm just following their lead.
In this whole ridiculous "Apple is greedy which is why they made the up-sell more appealing with 48Gb instead of just 16GB" argument with the proof being the increase in the APR, I didn't see any mention on the iPhone 6 Plus having a $100 premium over the iPhone 6.
$100 difference it too much, because the cost of the NAND is just pennies for Apple¡
Why don't you answer the question as to why Apple chose to lose billions by making the second tier 64GB instead of 32GB.
What makes you so certain they lost billions?
Because the mid tier is now $750, and $850 for the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 Plus respectively. Duh!
The same way they'd lose billions if they went from 16GB to 32GB. I personally don't think they would but that's [@]sog35[/@]'s rationale. Logic, and cause and effect can't be applied arbitrarily to one's liking.
You mean starting the lowest tier at 32GB instead of 16GB? If so, then you fail to understand the meaning for the tiers and customer needs.
I understand quite well. I also understand that the 16GB model is sufficient for some people's needs at the time of purchase but needs change, the OS is only getting bigger as are apps. In 2 years time a 16GB is most likely going to be almost useless yet there are going to be millions upon millions of them in circulation. A move to 32GB would've given the phone usefulness for years to come.
Answer this. Did more people go to the 64GB because it's 64GB or because 16GB was too little? If they would've gone to the second tier regardless if it was 32GB or 64GB then Apple indeed lost money. Had they stayed with 32GB for the second tier then the ASP would've been higher.
The update is smaller, not the actual OS.
Jesus!
Just answer the damn question!
Tell us what the 3 tiers should be and the pricing!
Lets just keep asking questions.
Why the need for three tiers and not two?
You say that, and you don't understand why it would be advantageous for Apple to keep the eatery-level tier at 16GB and then make the next two tiers a 48 and 64GB difference instead of having a 16 and 32GB or 16, 32, and 64GB larger for a $100 difference. My guess is you're seeing all customers as the same, instead of seeing from Apple's PoV where they are trying to maximize sales across all aspects of a given market.
Nope.
Nope.
Of course giving the customers more storage would allow for more storage, but that's argument to make and [@]sog35[/@] never once said that more storage doesn't equate to more storage.
In Western culture, and perhaps a part of human makeup, the Power of Three or Rule of Three is pervasive. Look it up.
It's possibility as to why Apple decided to jump from 32GB to 64GB for the middle tier when introducing the 128GB model, because 4 tiered options in capacity was less ideal when they crunched the numbers. And while we've been conditioned to think that all such things should double,, those still complaining that spending $100 for 16GB and $100 for another 32GB, instead of $100 for 48GB and $100 for another 64GB, are idiots.