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.
An answer that really doesn't answer anything. So why the reason for three tiers and how does that fit the customers needs?
The first generation iPhone had 4,8 of storage. On September 5th 2007 Apple discontinued the 4GB model. How did user needs change so fast? Feb 5th 2008 Apple added a 16gb option. So in about 8 months how did user needs change?
So eight years later we are still using 16GB as an acceptable standard for user needs? How is that determined, has Apple ever released anything to explain how the calculate tiers based on user needs?
So the top end changes from 8gb to 128gb over nine years yet the bottom end only doubles. Why is that?
The display goes from 3.5 inches to 4.7 and 5.5 inches. Before the change the typical BS on this forum was get an iPad if you want a bigger screen 3.5 inches is perfect. What changed?
As of March 2015 I believe Apple has sold over 700 million iPhones worldwide. Is the breakdown of models sold based on needs or is it based on a price point? After having data for nine year and 700 million devices sold I would think Apple would have really good data to know how much to charge to up sell storage.
So from the first iPhone you two are actually trying to rationalize the bottom end only needed to grow from 8gb to 16gb yet the top end grew from 8gb to 128gb?
What data do you have to support the changes were based on 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,
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.
Sure it's advantageous for Apple, it's just not advantageous to the user in the long run.
And yes the OS gets larger every year, and now apps have to be written for both 64 bit and 32 bit processors so they're going to be bigger.
An answer that really doesn't answer anything. So why the reason for three tiers and how does that fit the customers needs?
The first generation iPhone had 4,8 of storage. On September 5th 2007 Apple discontinued the 4GB model. How did user needs change so fast? Feb 5th 2008 Apple added a 16gb option. So in about 8 months how did user needs change?
You'll have to ask Apple why they messed up so badly. And, yes, Apple made huge errors with the launch of the iPhone.
So eight years later we are still using 16GB as an acceptable standard for user needs? How is that determined, has Apple ever released anything to explain how the calculate tiers based on user needs?
16GB starting as the top tier and now regulated to the bottom tier for new devices. Amazing you think that's odd.
So the top end changes from 8gb to 128gb over nine years yet the bottom end only doubles. Why is that?
As previously stated, customers have differing needs. As I previously stated, I know plenty of customers that don't ever load music, movies, large productivity apps or games, and so 16GB has been fine for them, and will likely be for even longer now that iOS 9 drops a lot of weight and streaming music because more popular than ever.
The display goes from 3.5 inches to 4.7 and 5.5 inches. Before the change the typical BS on this forum was get an iPad if you want a bigger screen 3.5 inches is perfect. What changed?
Show me one comment from a reasonable poster that ever said 3.5" 3:2 was PERFECT and should never change. If you go look at my posts on the subject you'll see that I based all such evaluations on the size and weight of the device, not the display.
As of March 2015 I believe Apple has sold over 700 million iPhones worldwide. Is the breakdown of models sold based on needs or is it based on a price point?
The breakdown, as given by Apple, is based on quarter, Einstein.
After having data for nine year and 700 million devices sold I would think Apple would have really good data to know how much to charge to up sell storage.
They would, which is why you need to stop questioning how they determine their tiers, especially trying to say that 16GB isn't enough for anyone. Clearly that's not the case.
So from the first iPhone you two are actually trying to rationalize the bottom end only needed to grow from 8gb to 16gb yet the top end grew from 8gb to 128gb?
And the camera pixel count grew by how much compared to the display resolution compared to the CPU processing compared to the GPU processing compared to the 3G performance compared to the 4G performance, etc.? Try to have a point next time or is this your OCD speaking where you think that if the bottom tier moved from 4GB to 16GB that the top tier should have only gone up from 12GB or by 3, depending on your particular issue.
What data do you have to support the changes were based on needs?
THE FACT THAT THIS IS WHAT APPLE HAS CHOSEN TO DO IS ALL THE DATA I NEED TO SAY THIS IS WHAT APPLE BELIEVES IS THE BEST WAY TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR A GIVEN MARKET WITH THE GIVEN RESOURCES.
PS: Your math is wrong. Correct it.
PPS: Were you making this same argument that SSDs were bad for customers because they were smaller than HDDs could be? I'd like to see those comments you've made.
Sure it's advantageous for Apple, it's just not advantageous to the user in the long run.
1) That logic makes perfect sense in the same vein that it's better for the customer if the price is lowered; wait, to the point of being free; wait, Apple pays their customers to use their products.
2) You still fail to see the entire product as a single entity, or, in some regard, all products that use iOS or code base. This is taken into account with their customer's needs. This is why you have the tiers that you. This isn't something you need to anything but decide which tier, if any, works best for your needs. If it does, good for Apple, if it doesn't, then good for someone else. None of this is a personal vendetta against you, some evil plot to get you buy a new iPhone (unless you want to tell us that Apple purposely cripples their iOS updates so customers have to buy a new device) before you're ready, or any other invented conspiracy theory you may have.
Sure it's advantageous for Apple, it's just not advantageous to the user in the long run.
1) That logic makes perfect sense in the same vein that it's better for the customer if the price is lowered; wait, to the point of being free; wait, Apple pays their customers to use their products.
2) You still fail to see the entire product as a single entity, or, in some regard, all products that use iOS or code base. This is taken into account with their customer's needs. This is why you have the tiers that you. This isn't something you need to anything but decide which tier, if any, works best for your needs. If it does, good for Apple, if it doesn't, then good for someone else. None of this is a personal vendetta against you, some evil plot to get you buy a new iPhone (unless you want to tell us that Apple purposely cripples their iOS updates so customers have to buy a new device) before you're ready, or any other invented conspiracy theory you may have.
1) That’s unnecessarily extreme. Nothing anyone has suggested even comes close to that.
2) Of course Apple wants users to upgrade early, and always introduces a new feature that previous phones can't do to ensure that.
[LIST] [*] There are a finite number of NAND chips available. [*] Apple uses NAND across their iPods, iPhone, iPads, Macs, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and probably some other products. [*] Apple will buy up as much NAND as it can or as much NAND as it thinks it needs within certain parameter(s). [*] Apple will then utilize this NAND as best it can to maximize sales of whole products across its product lines at a given time. [/LIST]
Now tell me how it makes sense for Apple to make the first tier iPhone 32GB when they make the middle tier 64GB and upper tier 128GB, if the number crunchers say they will only have enough NAND for the upper two tiers this year because demand for those higher tiers is much less than the lower tiers?
And all that's BEFORE we even consider the need of moving from 16GB in 2014 for a huge number of customers, the availability of other components that could also constrain the number of complete units produced, and the fact that Apple still continues to sell pretty much every device it can make.
Of course Apple wants users to upgrade early, and always introduces a new feature that previous phones can't do to ensure that.
They want them to upgrade early so they are purposely hamstringing their devices so they have to? :no: :rolleyes:
Look at Siri, they lied when they said that the previous models couldn't run it only to be proven wrong by amateur devs. Why not just come out and be truthful?
That would be a great argument if not for the fact that the first iPhone had to storage options 4GB and 8GB. The update still had two storage options 8GB and 16GB with the 4GB dropped.
Look at Siri, they lied when they said that the previous models couldn't run it only to be proven wrong by amateur devs. Why not just come out and be truthful?
Siri proves my point about balancing resource allotment. Apple didn't say that it was impossible to run Siri on an older iPhone. In fact, Siri was already available as a qseperae app on even older iPhones before they bought it. Was wasn't possible was this balance offering of all current devices to run Siri. We know this because it wasn't even feasible for their newly sold devices to run Siri with the entire service coming to crawl that weekend from an excessive load on the servers. I was so annoyed with that experience and a known bug causing a battery drain on the device that I returned it and didn't buy another iPhone until the next year. They lost a sale from me that year do to that failed launch.
Now tell me how you think Siri would have started working just fine with not just a few million iPhones using Siri, but over 100 million?
That would be a great argument if not for the fact that the first iPhone had to storage options 4GB and 8GB. The update still had two storage options 8GB and 16GB with the 4GB dropped.
iPhone 3G was available in 8GB and 16GB.
I am amazed at how many times you can write the same stupid shit.
Those with sound mind needs to blast this "BGR" site who spreads wrong information about Apple and it's product. There current article says " Uh oh... A huge leak suggests the iPhone 6s Might Not Fix the Worst Thing About the iPhone 6" which they point to 16GB memory is worst thing in ipgone 6. BGR site is run by bunch of idiots.
Look at Siri, they lied when they said that the previous models couldn't run it only to be proven wrong by amateur devs. Why not just come out and be truthful?
Siri proves my point about balancing resource allotment. Apple didn't say that it was impossible to run Siri on an older iPhone. In fact, Siri was already available as a qseperae app on even older iPhones before they bought it. Was wasn't possible was this balance offering of all current devices to run Siri. We know this because it wasn't even feasible for their newly sold devices to run Siri with the entire service coming to crawl that weekend from an excessive load on the servers. I was so annoyed with that experience and a known bug causing a battery drain on the device that I returned it and didn't buy another iPhone until the next year. They lost a sale from me that year do to that failed launch.
Now tell me how you think Siri would have started working just fine with not just a few million iPhones using Siri, but over 100 million?
Of course Siri wasn't ready for prime time, but I don't think it was beyond Apple's ability to do a slow roll out to at the very least the previous model.
THE FACT THAT THIS IS WHAT APPLE HAS CHOSEN TO DO IS ALL THE DATA I NEED TO SAY THIS IS WHAT APPLE BELIEVES IS THE BEST WAY TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR A GIVEN MARKET WITH THE GIVEN RESOURCES.
PS: Your math is wrong. Correct it.
PPS: Were you making this same argument that SSDs were bad for customers because they were smaller than HDDs could be? I'd like to see those comments you've made.
The above is the only part I needed to quote. Stop using the term based on "user needs" it's not based on user needs it's based on profit.
Sog keeps saying three tiers is the standard which is funny because Apple released three versions of the iPhone before going to three tiers.
I would never make that comment about SSD and HDDs. That would be an idiotic comment. That would be the same group of people making the comment that the new Macbook is outdated because it's only as fast as a 2007 Macbook Air.
Back to the iPhone assumption that the top end user needs have gone from 8GB to 128GB while the bottom end has only grown from 8GB to 16GB over 9 years is flawed at best. If someone simply looks at the camera spec increase, amount of apps available and the increase of iOS size over the years 16GB is not enough.
The 16GB to 64GB is perfect marketing and a up sell because it's 100.00 or 4.16 for those that finance. I love profits, it's the user needs argument that is BS.
Not sure where my math was wrong in the previous post.
The above is the only part I needed to quote. Stop using the term based on "user needs" it's not based on user needs it's based on profit.
A successful company attempts to maximize profits by optimizing the user's needs. This is why the 4GB iPhone stopped being sold so early after release. Apple made a mistake. They also made a mistake with pricing that first year.
Sog keeps saying three tiers is the standard which is funny because Apple released three versions of the iPhone before going to three tiers.
It is standard. It was standard long before the iPhone or even Apple existed. That don'ts mean it's the only option nor does it means it's the best option for every circumstance, but the very fact that you are clueless to its existence means you shouldn't be having this conversation.
I would never make that comment about SSD and HDDs. That would be an idiotic comment. That would be the same group of people making the comment that the new Macbook is outdated because it's only as fast as a 2007 Macbook Air.
It's also idiotic for you to claim that 16GB isn't enough for anyone, that Apple is "just being greedy", or any of the other ridiculous comments about how Apple should have done this or that with capacity because of the current CPU or GPU performance.
Back to the iPhone assumption that the top end user needs have gone from 8GB to 128GB while the bottom end has only grown from 8GB to 16GB over 9 years is flawed at best. If someone simply looks at the camera spec increase, amount of apps available and the increase of iOS size over the years 16GB is not enough.
Again, you're making stupid comments because you're not understanding what is obvious to most and you'll continue to not understand so long as your keep thinking about this from your own perspective.
The 16GB to 64GB is perfect marketing and a up sell because it's 100.00 or 4.16 for those that finance. I love profits, it's the user needs argument that is BS.
Perfect marketing? Really? Your big revelation is that getting 48GB for $100 is better than getting 16GB for $100, all other things equal? Seriously?! How the **** can you write such stupid shit and expect to be taken as a thinking individual. By that measure, going from 16GB to 128GB is even MORE PERFECT. How about you actually reading what is written in this thread to understand why Apple may have kept the middle tier only at 32GB for so many years until last year. I gave you a watered down scenario that I'd have assumed you could disgust. There are plenty of accounting formulas, as well as many other factors that need to be accounted for but I keep it simple for you.
Not sure where my math was wrong in the previous post.
I am amazed at how many times you can write the same stupid shit.
I was commenting on how three tiers was the standard. Good, Better, Best. You know the standard for 1,000 years. That's stupid shit.
The first generation iPhone was released with two storage options. I'm amazed at how much times people can post false stupid shit which requires me to post the same shit.
I was commenting on how three tiers was the standard. Good, Better, Best. You know the standard for 1,000 years. That's stupid shit.
The first generation iPhone was released with two storage options. I'm amazed at how much times people can post false stupid shit which requires me to post the same shit.
He said it was a STANDARD marketing practice, not a REQUIREMENT. Besides not understanding the good, better, best model you are also arguing for the one year in which Apple clearly made a lot of mistakes with selling the iPhone. From starting at a storage level customers felt was too low, to not having a 3rd tier (although price or NAND availability may have been an issue), to the high price, to the profit sharing model there were many missteps… but you can go ahead and blame that on Cook even though Jobs was CEO. :rolleyes:
A successful company attempts to maximize profits by optimizing the user's needs. This is why the 4GB iPhone stopped being sold so early after release. Apple made a mistake. They also made a mistake with pricing that first year.
It is standard. It was standard long before the iPhone or even Apple existed. That don'ts mean it's the only option nor does it means it's the best option for every circumstance, but the very fact that you are clueless to its existence means you shouldn't be having this conversation.
It's also idiotic for you to claim that 16GB isn't enough for anyone, that Apple is "just being greedy", or any of the other ridiculous comments about how Apple should have done this or that with capacity because of the current CPU or GPU performance.
Again, you're making stupid comments because you're not understanding what is obvious to most and you'll continue to not understand so long as your keep thinking about this from your own perspective.
Perfect marketing? Really? Your big revelation is that getting 48GB for $100 is better than getting 16GB for $100, all other things equal? Seriously?! How the **** can you write such stupid shit and expect to be taken as a thinking individual. By that measure, going from 16GB to 128GB is even MORE PERFECT. How about you actually reading what is written in this thread to understand why Apple may have kept the middle tier only at 32GB for so many years until last year. I gave you a watered down scenario that I'd have assumed you could disgust. There are plenty of accounting formulas, as well as many other factors that need to be accounted for but I keep it simple for you.
No shit!
First I have never said Apple is greedy in fact I made the comment that Apple should simply get rid of 16GB only offer 64 and 128GB and keep the 64GB price point. That is simply my opinion, I haven't sent an email to Tim Cook suggesting this recommendation. I could care less if Apple is greedy that is someone else's argument. I'm a fan of Capitalism.
Okay let me make myself clear 16GB is enough for someone that isn't taking advantage of the device they have bought. A example for many years computers keep getting faster processors, faster ram yet still using 5400rpm HDD. It was the bottleneck. I see the same issue with someone using an iPhone with 16GB.
Do you believe that people will stop buying iPhone's if Apple simply discontinued the 16GB model? Apple has discontinued storage options before without any problems. I have not said anything about Apple being greedy, Apple changing price points, simply that 16GB is outdated.
You know kind of like Apple calling something a Macbook "PRO" with 4GB of Ram and a 5400rpm HDD and a 1280x800 resolution. So it's not like we can't say Apple sometimes has a habit of letting things get a bit long in the tooth.
Next I am not writing stupid shit you are just too stupid to comprehend what I am writing. I also find it funny that you take this so seriously that you start with the personal attacks. You're a joke and you make me laugh. Maybe you need another break from the forum or some couch time.
You type out stupid shit and then try to back pedal when I point out really simple facts like three tiers was never a standard at first and then you try to justify something having a meaning other then what was written.
Comments
The pricing tier you suggested. It's going to be that soon, and when it does I want to hear you say it's a mistake on Apple's part to do that.
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.
An answer that really doesn't answer anything. So why the reason for three tiers and how does that fit the customers needs?
The first generation iPhone had 4,8 of storage. On September 5th 2007 Apple discontinued the 4GB model. How did user needs change so fast? Feb 5th 2008 Apple added a 16gb option. So in about 8 months how did user needs change?
So eight years later we are still using 16GB as an acceptable standard for user needs? How is that determined, has Apple ever released anything to explain how the calculate tiers based on user needs?
So the top end changes from 8gb to 128gb over nine years yet the bottom end only doubles. Why is that?
The display goes from 3.5 inches to 4.7 and 5.5 inches. Before the change the typical BS on this forum was get an iPad if you want a bigger screen 3.5 inches is perfect. What changed?
As of March 2015 I believe Apple has sold over 700 million iPhones worldwide. Is the breakdown of models sold based on needs or is it based on a price point? After having data for nine year and 700 million devices sold I would think Apple would have really good data to know how much to charge to up sell storage.
So from the first iPhone you two are actually trying to rationalize the bottom end only needed to grow from 8gb to 16gb yet the top end grew from 8gb to 128gb?
What data do you have to support the changes were based on needs?
Sure it's advantageous for Apple, it's just not advantageous to the user in the long run.
And yes the OS gets larger every year, and now apps have to be written for both 64 bit and 32 bit processors so they're going to be bigger.
You'll have to ask Apple why they messed up so badly. And, yes, Apple made huge errors with the launch of the iPhone.
16GB starting as the top tier and now regulated to the bottom tier for new devices. Amazing you think that's odd.
As previously stated, customers have differing needs. As I previously stated, I know plenty of customers that don't ever load music, movies, large productivity apps or games, and so 16GB has been fine for them, and will likely be for even longer now that iOS 9 drops a lot of weight and streaming music because more popular than ever.
Show me one comment from a reasonable poster that ever said 3.5" 3:2 was PERFECT and should never change. If you go look at my posts on the subject you'll see that I based all such evaluations on the size and weight of the device, not the display.
The breakdown, as given by Apple, is based on quarter, Einstein.
They would, which is why you need to stop questioning how they determine their tiers, especially trying to say that 16GB isn't enough for anyone. Clearly that's not the case.
And the camera pixel count grew by how much compared to the display resolution compared to the CPU processing compared to the GPU processing compared to the 3G performance compared to the 4G performance, etc.? Try to have a point next time or is this your OCD speaking where you think that if the bottom tier moved from 4GB to 16GB that the top tier should have only gone up from 12GB or by 3, depending on your particular issue.
THE FACT THAT THIS IS WHAT APPLE HAS CHOSEN TO DO IS ALL THE DATA I NEED TO SAY THIS IS WHAT APPLE BELIEVES IS THE BEST WAY TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR A GIVEN MARKET WITH THE GIVEN RESOURCES.
PS: Your math is wrong. Correct it.
PPS: Were you making this same argument that SSDs were bad for customers because they were smaller than HDDs could be? I'd like to see those comments you've made.
1) That logic makes perfect sense in the same vein that it's better for the customer if the price is lowered; wait, to the point of being free; wait, Apple pays their customers to use their products.
2) You still fail to see the entire product as a single entity, or, in some regard, all products that use iOS or code base. This is taken into account with their customer's needs. This is why you have the tiers that you. This isn't something you need to anything but decide which tier, if any, works best for your needs. If it does, good for Apple, if it doesn't, then good for someone else. None of this is a personal vendetta against you, some evil plot to get you buy a new iPhone (unless you want to tell us that Apple purposely cripples their iOS updates so customers have to buy a new device) before you're ready, or any other invented conspiracy theory you may have.
1) That’s unnecessarily extreme. Nothing anyone has suggested even comes close to that.
2) Of course Apple wants users to upgrade early, and always introduces a new feature that previous phones can't do to ensure that.
[LIST]
[*] There are a finite number of NAND chips available.
[*] Apple uses NAND across their iPods, iPhone, iPads, Macs, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and probably some other products.
[*] Apple will buy up as much NAND as it can or as much NAND as it thinks it needs within certain parameter(s).
[*] Apple will then utilize this NAND as best it can to maximize sales of whole products across its product lines at a given time.
[/LIST]
Now tell me how it makes sense for Apple to make the first tier iPhone 32GB when they make the middle tier 64GB and upper tier 128GB, if the number crunchers say they will only have enough NAND for the upper two tiers this year because demand for those higher tiers is much less than the lower tiers?
And all that's BEFORE we even consider the need of moving from 16GB in 2014 for a huge number of customers, the availability of other components that could also constrain the number of complete units produced, and the fact that Apple still continues to sell pretty much every device it can make.
They want them to upgrade early so they are purposely hamstringing their devices so they have to? :no: :rolleyes:
OMFG. A company making a new product better than the previous version. How dare Apple (or anyone) do this.
Look at Siri, they lied when they said that the previous models couldn't run it only to be proven wrong by amateur devs. Why not just come out and be truthful?
Good, Better, Best.
Its been part of culture for thousands of years.
3 tiers is the standard.
That would be a great argument if not for the fact that the first iPhone had to storage options 4GB and 8GB. The update still had two storage options 8GB and 16GB with the 4GB dropped.
iPhone 3G was available in 8GB and 16GB.
Siri proves my point about balancing resource allotment. Apple didn't say that it was impossible to run Siri on an older iPhone. In fact, Siri was already available as a qseperae app on even older iPhones before they bought it. Was wasn't possible was this balance offering of all current devices to run Siri. We know this because it wasn't even feasible for their newly sold devices to run Siri with the entire service coming to crawl that weekend from an excessive load on the servers. I was so annoyed with that experience and a known bug causing a battery drain on the device that I returned it and didn't buy another iPhone until the next year. They lost a sale from me that year do to that failed launch.
Now tell me how you think Siri would have started working just fine with not just a few million iPhones using Siri, but over 100 million?
I am amazed at how many times you can write the same stupid shit.
BGR site is run by bunch of idiots.
Of course Siri wasn't ready for prime time, but I don't think it was beyond Apple's ability to do a slow roll out to at the very least the previous model.
THE FACT THAT THIS IS WHAT APPLE HAS CHOSEN TO DO IS ALL THE DATA I NEED TO SAY THIS IS WHAT APPLE BELIEVES IS THE BEST WAY TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS FOR A GIVEN MARKET WITH THE GIVEN RESOURCES.
PS: Your math is wrong. Correct it.
PPS: Were you making this same argument that SSDs were bad for customers because they were smaller than HDDs could be? I'd like to see those comments you've made.
The above is the only part I needed to quote. Stop using the term based on "user needs" it's not based on user needs it's based on profit.
Sog keeps saying three tiers is the standard which is funny because Apple released three versions of the iPhone before going to three tiers.
I would never make that comment about SSD and HDDs. That would be an idiotic comment. That would be the same group of people making the comment that the new Macbook is outdated because it's only as fast as a 2007 Macbook Air.
Back to the iPhone assumption that the top end user needs have gone from 8GB to 128GB while the bottom end has only grown from 8GB to 16GB over 9 years is flawed at best. If someone simply looks at the camera spec increase, amount of apps available and the increase of iOS size over the years 16GB is not enough.
The 16GB to 64GB is perfect marketing and a up sell because it's 100.00 or 4.16 for those that finance. I love profits, it's the user needs argument that is BS.
Not sure where my math was wrong in the previous post.
A successful company attempts to maximize profits by optimizing the user's needs. This is why the 4GB iPhone stopped being sold so early after release. Apple made a mistake. They also made a mistake with pricing that first year.
It is standard. It was standard long before the iPhone or even Apple existed. That don'ts mean it's the only option nor does it means it's the best option for every circumstance, but the very fact that you are clueless to its existence means you shouldn't be having this conversation.
It's also idiotic for you to claim that 16GB isn't enough for anyone, that Apple is "just being greedy", or any of the other ridiculous comments about how Apple should have done this or that with capacity because of the current CPU or GPU performance.
Again, you're making stupid comments because you're not understanding what is obvious to most and you'll continue to not understand so long as your keep thinking about this from your own perspective.
Perfect marketing? Really? Your big revelation is that getting 48GB for $100 is better than getting 16GB for $100, all other things equal? Seriously?! How the **** can you write such stupid shit and expect to be taken as a thinking individual. By that measure, going from 16GB to 128GB is even MORE PERFECT. How about you actually reading what is written in this thread to understand why Apple may have kept the middle tier only at 32GB for so many years until last year. I gave you a watered down scenario that I'd have assumed you could disgust. There are plenty of accounting formulas, as well as many other factors that need to be accounted for but I keep it simple for you.
No shit!
I am amazed at how many times you can write the same stupid shit.
I was commenting on how three tiers was the standard. Good, Better, Best. You know the standard for 1,000 years. That's stupid shit.
The first generation iPhone was released with two storage options. I'm amazed at how much times people can post false stupid shit which requires me to post the same shit.
He said it was a STANDARD marketing practice, not a REQUIREMENT. Besides not understanding the good, better, best model you are also arguing for the one year in which Apple clearly made a lot of mistakes with selling the iPhone. From starting at a storage level customers felt was too low, to not having a 3rd tier (although price or NAND availability may have been an issue), to the high price, to the profit sharing model there were many missteps… but you can go ahead and blame that on Cook even though Jobs was CEO. :rolleyes:
A successful company attempts to maximize profits by optimizing the user's needs. This is why the 4GB iPhone stopped being sold so early after release. Apple made a mistake. They also made a mistake with pricing that first year.
It is standard. It was standard long before the iPhone or even Apple existed. That don'ts mean it's the only option nor does it means it's the best option for every circumstance, but the very fact that you are clueless to its existence means you shouldn't be having this conversation.
It's also idiotic for you to claim that 16GB isn't enough for anyone, that Apple is "just being greedy", or any of the other ridiculous comments about how Apple should have done this or that with capacity because of the current CPU or GPU performance.
Again, you're making stupid comments because you're not understanding what is obvious to most and you'll continue to not understand so long as your keep thinking about this from your own perspective.
Perfect marketing? Really? Your big revelation is that getting 48GB for $100 is better than getting 16GB for $100, all other things equal? Seriously?! How the **** can you write such stupid shit and expect to be taken as a thinking individual. By that measure, going from 16GB to 128GB is even MORE PERFECT. How about you actually reading what is written in this thread to understand why Apple may have kept the middle tier only at 32GB for so many years until last year. I gave you a watered down scenario that I'd have assumed you could disgust. There are plenty of accounting formulas, as well as many other factors that need to be accounted for but I keep it simple for you.
No shit!
First I have never said Apple is greedy in fact I made the comment that Apple should simply get rid of 16GB only offer 64 and 128GB and keep the 64GB price point. That is simply my opinion, I haven't sent an email to Tim Cook suggesting this recommendation. I could care less if Apple is greedy that is someone else's argument. I'm a fan of Capitalism.
Okay let me make myself clear 16GB is enough for someone that isn't taking advantage of the device they have bought. A example for many years computers keep getting faster processors, faster ram yet still using 5400rpm HDD. It was the bottleneck. I see the same issue with someone using an iPhone with 16GB.
Do you believe that people will stop buying iPhone's if Apple simply discontinued the 16GB model? Apple has discontinued storage options before without any problems. I have not said anything about Apple being greedy, Apple changing price points, simply that 16GB is outdated.
You know kind of like Apple calling something a Macbook "PRO" with 4GB of Ram and a 5400rpm HDD and a 1280x800 resolution. So it's not like we can't say Apple sometimes has a habit of letting things get a bit long in the tooth.
Next I am not writing stupid shit you are just too stupid to comprehend what I am writing. I also find it funny that you take this so seriously that you start with the personal attacks. You're a joke and you make me laugh. Maybe you need another break from the forum or some couch time.
You type out stupid shit and then try to back pedal when I point out really simple facts like three tiers was never a standard at first and then you try to justify something having a meaning other then what was written.