New Google Photos ad riffs on struggles of 16GB iPhone users

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,428member

    You can look at the specific restrictions on what "perpetual" means in the product-specific terms of services:

    https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2733115?hl=en&ref_topic=2428743

    It says in the Google Drive TOS (Photos is really part of that since Google Photos appear as a folder there - emphasis mine):

    "We do not claim ownership in any of your content, including any text, data, information, and files that you upload, share, or store in your Drive account. What our Terms of Service do is enable us to give you the services you want — so if you decide to share a document with someone, or want to open it on a different device, we can provide that functionality.

    To sum it up:

    • You control who can access your files in Drive. We will not share your files and data with others except as described in our Privacy Policy. So, for example:
      • We will not change a Private document into a Public one;
      • We will not use a Private document for marketing or promotional campaigns;
      • We will keep your data only as long as you ask us to keep it.
    • You can take your data with you if you choose to stop using Google Drive."

    Sounds pretty clear to me: they won't keep your files if you cancel your Drive Account. They won't market your files.

    Of course, people have their favorite paranoias which they like to project onto Google. 

    You're far too trusting--gullible some might say. If a protection isn't in writing, it doesn't legally exist. Just because a photos folder appears in Google Drive does not mean content provided via the Google Photos service is covered by the Google Drive terms of service. Just because Google acknowledges that the user retains ownership doesn't mean Google can't take out a license to do whatever it wants forever with your data. Even with Google Drive, Google says it won't share your data with others but that's in accordance with its Privacy Policy which still allows Google and others to rifle through your data. Google is under no obligation to tell the public (or users) how it has used their data--ever. Time goes by, data accumulates, data mining methods improve, and Google can put this all together in practically any way they wish.
    edited August 2016 radarthekat
  • Reply 42 of 69
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,750member
    cali said:
    Let me guess that people here will disagree until Apple does and then it will be crickets (see increasing RAM to 2GB).

    John Gruber posted this on his site:

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/08/08/google-photos-sick-burn

    Doomed!

    I think this ad could backfire and lead to more high GB iPhone sales.

    The fact the ad ends with a knockoff device kinda kills his whole argument and again lead to upgraded iPhone sales.
    That hillarious. If anything it's going to lead people to use Google Photos over Apple's own Photos app. I've  seen this Google ad several times during the Olympics. I'm seeing Microsoft Surface and Windows OEM ads all the time. Haven't seen one Apple ad yet.
  • Reply 43 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    cpsro said:

    You can look at the specific restrictions on what "perpetual" means in the product-specific terms of services:

    https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2733115?hl=en&ref_topic=2428743

    It says in the Google Drive TOS (Photos is really part of that since Google Photos appear as a folder there - emphasis mine):

    "We do not claim ownership in any of your content, including any text, data, information, and files that you upload, share, or store in your Drive account. What our Terms of Service do is enable us to give you the services you want — so if you decide to share a document with someone, or want to open it on a different device, we can provide that functionality.

    To sum it up:

    • You control who can access your files in Drive. We will not share your files and data with others except as described in our Privacy Policy. So, for example:
      • We will not change a Private document into a Public one;
      • We will not use a Private document for marketing or promotional campaigns;
      • We will keep your data only as long as you ask us to keep it.
    • You can take your data with you if you choose to stop using Google Drive."

    Sounds pretty clear to me: they won't keep your files if you cancel your Drive Account. They won't market your files.

    Of course, people have their favorite paranoias which they like to project onto Google. 

    You're far too trusting--gullible some might say. If a protection isn't in writing, it doesn't legally exist. Just because a photos folder appears in Google Drive does not mean content provided via the Google Photos service is covered by the Google Drive terms of service. Just because Google acknowledges that the user retains ownership doesn't mean Google can't take out a license to do whatever it wants forever with your data. Even with Google Drive, Google says it won't share your data with others but that's in accordance with its Privacy Policy which still allows Google and others to rifle through your data. Google is under no obligation to tell the public (or users) how it has used their data--ever. Time goes by, data accumulates, data mining methods improve, and Google can put this all together in practically any way they wish.
    This is in writing:
    "Google Photos will not use images or videos uploaded onto Google Photos commercially for any promotional purposes, unless we ask for the user’s explicit permission."

    As for "rifling thru files" Apple retains that right to do so to be certain nothing objectionable, in poor taste, obscene or that you don't have ownership of is uploaded and stored. It doesn't mean they actively do, nor would you likely be concerned if they did. 
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 44 of 69
    I love it at how Google makes it looks like iPhone only has 16GB. Any sensible person would get at least 64GB or 128GB... right?
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 45 of 69
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,428member
    gatorguy said:
    That's quite a stretch in an effort to "prove" something that you can't. Attaching a profile pic connected to a user review on a Google map is not in any way similar. You specifically give Google your profile pic that you yourself chose to represent you on Google+.  Even when you decide to attach a specific picture but don't on't want it used for endorsements or reviews, Google Maps included? Opt out. Eazy-peezy.
    https://support.google.com/plus/answer/3403513?hl=en

    So again where is your evidence that proves Google using user uploaded Google Photos content for Google's personal gain such as marketing? Don't have any? Then it didn't happen. 
    I don't have to prove Google has done this, only that their license allows it, which it does.
    And you seem not to be a very saavy Google user at all if you've not seen the many photos available to view within Google Maps, which are no doubt a tiny subset of all photos Google has rights to use.
    edited August 2016 radarthekatjcs2305nolamacguy
  • Reply 46 of 69
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,428member
    gatorguy said:
    cpsro said:

    You're far too trusting--gullible some might say. If a protection isn't in writing, it doesn't legally exist. Just because a photos folder appears in Google Drive does not mean content provided via the Google Photos service is covered by the Google Drive terms of service. Just because Google acknowledges that the user retains ownership doesn't mean Google can't take out a license to do whatever it wants forever with your data. Even with Google Drive, Google says it won't share your data with others but that's in accordance with its Privacy Policy which still allows Google and others to rifle through your data. Google is under no obligation to tell the public (or users) how it has used their data--ever. Time goes by, data accumulates, data mining methods improve, and Google can put this all together in practically any way they wish.
    This is in writing:
    "Google Photos will not use images or videos uploaded onto Google Photos commercially for any promotional purposes, unless we ask for the user’s explicit permission."

    As for "rifling thru files" Apple retains that right to do so to be certain nothing objectionable, in poor taste, obscene or that you don't have ownership of is uploaded and stored. It doesn't mean they actively do, nor would you likely be concerned if they did. 
    (1) Where did you get that Google quote?
    (2) "Explicit permission" is not defined... could it involve the user merely agreeing to the Google Photos terms of service?
    (3) Not using photos for "promotional purposes" does not eliminate use of the photos for R&D or other purposes.
    edited August 2016 radarthekatjcs2305
  • Reply 47 of 69
    cali said:
    Doomed!

    I think this ad could backfire and lead to more high GB iPhone sales.

    The fact the ad ends with a knockoff device kinda kills his whole argument and again lead to upgraded iPhone sales.
    That hillarious. If anything it's going to lead people to use Google Photos over Apple's own Photos app. I've  seen this Google ad several times during the Olympics. I'm seeing Microsoft Surface and Windows OEM ads all the time. Haven't seen one Apple ad yet.
    Not exactly. For one thing, I hate Google more and will stick to Apple ecosystem.
  • Reply 48 of 69
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,926moderator
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    cpsro said:
    Users of Google Photos give the company a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license to use their photos for any purpose, including marketing. If/when users "delete" their photos from Google's cloud and discontinue using the service, the company still retains the right to use the photos for their own purposes and will likely maintain the photos. Face recognition technology is already quite good. Place recognition (especially with GPS EXIF data) and other forms of recognition are improving. By using Google Photos, even for a short time, you provide Google with more data that can and will be used in ever more sophisticated ways to track and market to you and everyone else.

    (Because AppleInsider fails to mention the above, long-known short-coming to the service, it makes me wonder if Google paid AI to post the article.)

    Use of Pokemon Go is another way for Google to map the world for free.
    Google and Apple have in general the same wording when it comes to the Cloud services. Your should read and compare to confirm what I said is true.
    Those permissions you seem so concerned about are needed to supply the user features that Cloud services offer whether it's Dropbox, Apple, Google or Microsoft.

     As Google expressly stated, your photos are yours and remain yours alone, completely contrary to what you would like people to think.  They don't belong to Google and never have. To quote:
    "... Your Content in our Services
    Some of our Services (for example Google Photos) allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours..."

    The rumors that Google was supposedly going to use your Google Photos for their own purposes was FUD, plain and simple. You don't help readers by perpetuating a myth. 
    "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content."

    does not negate the point the previous poster made.   His point was clear; that you assign Google rights to use those photos in any manner they please, even as you retain ownership.  That's similar to you assigning non-exclusive rights to utilize a patented invention, in perpetuity, even though you retain ownership and can assign those same rights to others.  It's not the same as saying Google isn't going to use your photos for its own purposes, because you have indeed agreed that they can do just that.  You don't help readers in attempting to conflate the issues under discussion.
    More FUD, and I would have assumed you had done enough reading about it to know better. "What belongs to you stays yours", not Google's. But feel free to prove they're lying by simply posting evidence of Google using images that folks put in Google Photos for Google's own uses.  I'll wait. 
    This is your pattern. When you lose the argument, you demand that your opponent go off on some wild goose chase to find specific evidence. When I see you go into that mode, I take it as your concession.  But hey, thanks for playing. 
    edited August 2016 nolamacguy
  • Reply 49 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    gatorguy said:
    "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content."

    does not negate the point the previous poster made.   His point was clear; that you assign Google rights to use those photos in any manner they please, even as you retain ownership.  That's similar to you assigning non-exclusive rights to utilize a patented invention, in perpetuity, even though you retain ownership and can assign those same rights to others.  It's not the same as saying Google isn't going to use your photos for its own purposes, because you have indeed agreed that they can do just that.  You don't help readers in attempting to conflate the issues under discussion.
    More FUD, and I would have assumed you had done enough reading about it to know better. "What belongs to you stays yours", not Google's. But feel free to prove they're lying by simply posting evidence of Google using images that folks put in Google Photos for Google's own uses.  I'll wait. 
    This is your pattern. When you lose the argument, you demand that your opponent go off on some wild goose chase to find specific evidence. When I see you go into that mode, I take it as your concession.  But hey, thanks for playing. 
    As I expected.
  • Reply 50 of 69
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,926moderator
    cpsro said:
    gatorguy said:
    Apparently you and I have very different understanding of  Google's "you retain ownership" and Apple's "We don't claim ownership". Sure sound the same to me but I'll offer you the same challenge sir. It should be very easy to prove Google is using personal and/or privately owned pictures uploaded to Google Photos for their own purposes. After all it's not a new service so those examples of Google using them should be easy to find. Juicy click-bait like that wouldn't be passed up by any tech blog. 

    Since it's never happened it's just FUD, some folks spreading "fear uncertainty and doubt" for their own purposes, plain and simple IMHO. 
    You apparently don't understand that retaining ownership of content can be consistent with the owner granting a license to use the content. Google Maps contains countless user photos. How did that happen? Google's license gives the company great leeway in how it uses user-owned content now and forever.
    You nailed exactly what he doesn't comprehend, even after several of us have responded and clarified the issue. He stops at, you own your data and apparently doesn't get the fact that you grant Google rights to use it in their services. Which is exactly the complaint people have about Google data-mining everyone.
  • Reply 51 of 69
    All good if you don't mind google downsizing your videos and using your normally private photos as part of their data gathering and ad targeting surveillance. Then there is the whole issue of using a separate app, if your phone can't store a single new photo it certainly can't download the 100mb+ Google Photos app. How about the technical limitations of Google Photos not supporting special Apple Photos specific features, the app requiring syncing while the app is open and it uploading even the photos you'd prefer it didn't.

    Here's the thing, you can just use iCloud, it's seamless, runs in the background when the phone isn't processing other things, it is intelligent enough to use your wifi instead of your 4G and is far quicker than the Google Photos, plus iCloud doesn't run the risk of randomly being killed off or having the terms changed in unfavourable ways.

    The cost for iCloud, free, not even a download - and if you need a serious level of storage, the annual cost is less than a good drink.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 52 of 69
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,926moderator
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content."

    does not negate the point the previous poster made.   His point was clear; that you assign Google rights to use those photos in any manner they please, even as you retain ownership.  That's similar to you assigning non-exclusive rights to utilize a patented invention, in perpetuity, even though you retain ownership and can assign those same rights to others.  It's not the same as saying Google isn't going to use your photos for its own purposes, because you have indeed agreed that they can do just that.  You don't help readers in attempting to conflate the issues under discussion.
    More FUD, and I would have assumed you had done enough reading about it to know better. "What belongs to you stays yours", not Google's. But feel free to prove they're lying by simply posting evidence of Google using images that folks put in Google Photos for Google's own uses.  I'll wait. 
    This is your pattern. When you lose the argument, you demand that your opponent go off on some wild goose chase to find specific evidence. When I see you go into that mode, I take it as your concession.  But hey, thanks for playing. 
    As I expected.
    Dude, do you even know what the discussion you're engaged in is about?  Go back and read the messages.  We are discussing what rights Google reserves in its terms of use.  That's a discussion that doesn't need evidence of how Google actually uses the information you grant it rights to when you agree to the terms.  You're trying to take the argument out of its limits because you've lost, so now you want to make it an argument about proving Google actually does something nefarious with user's data.  This entire argument is about what the terms of use state, and that needs only reference to those terms, not any subsequent behavior on Google's part.  So you haven't the right to base your side of the argument on that.  But you don't seem to even understand this point either.
    edited August 2016 nolamacguy
  • Reply 53 of 69
    What about a free 1TB Flickr account?
  • Reply 54 of 69
    This is nonsense and just FUD:

    Google's terms of service for user-created content are here:
    https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

    "When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.

    Here are Apple's:
    http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/icloud/en/terms.html

    "Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you. You agree that any Content submitted or posted by you shall be your sole responsibility, shall not infringe or violate the rights of any other party or violate any laws, contribute to or encourage infringing or otherwise unlawful conduct, or otherwise be obscene, objectionable, or in poor taste. By submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users, you are representing that you are the owner of such material and/or have all necessary rights, licenses, and authorization to distribute it."

    They are extremely similar and cover the mechanics of cloud computing (where files have to be copied and displayed somewhere). The part of the Google license that mentions continuing use after you close account applies only to things like listings yo have added to Google maps - photos for example are deleted and hence no longer displayed.

    You should read more carefully the sections you bolded.  You'll see that's there's a significant difference.  operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones is exactly what people are referring to when they say Google data mines its customers to better target them.  Because THATS WHAT GOOGLE'S SERVICES DO.  Whereas Apple's wording makes clear, solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available.  That means Apple has the right to deal with your data only in order to facilitate the purpose for which you handed them the data, such as to store it as a backup, or to share it with those YOU CONFIGURED YOUR ACCOUNT TO SHARE PHOTOS WITH.  Huge, huge difference in these terms. 

    Why aren't Gatorguy and Bigmushroom responding to this one? I see that Gatorguy responded to every comment save for this one.
    radarthekatjcs2305
  • Reply 55 of 69
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Considering the Samsung S7's Android/Wizwhatever takes 10Gb, twice what IOS takes, I think this is basically projection.

    You can take a hell of a lot of photo even with 16Gb on IOS and if someone runs out of space at 16, its because they're not ever transfering photos and videos and will run out of space at 32 too.

    IF your in the habit of taking 4K movies, cleaning your phones regularly is a must unless your getting the 128GB, so the 16GB versus 32 argument in that case would be non sequitur.

    Of course, there is mention of course that Iphone's storage is actually, hum FAST, much faster in fact and that factors in why they put 16 in (faster mem, scarcer supply).


    edited August 2016 radarthekat
  • Reply 56 of 69
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    You should read more carefully the sections you bolded.  You'll see that's there's a significant difference.  operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones is exactly what people are referring to when they say Google data mines its customers to better target them.  Because THATS WHAT GOOGLE'S SERVICES DO.  Whereas Apple's wording makes clear, solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available.  That means Apple has the right to deal with your data only in order to facilitate the purpose for which you handed them the data, such as to store it as a backup, or to share it with those YOU CONFIGURED YOUR ACCOUNT TO SHARE PHOTOS WITH.  Huge, huge difference in these terms. 

    Why aren't Gatorguy and Bigmushroom responding to this one? I see that Gatorguy responded to every comment save for this one.
    Because Gator LOST THE ARGUMENT and can't respond to that;.
    Gator is basically a Android shill who stays here and respond to any Android bait here no matter what it is, for god knows what innate reason.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 57 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,805member
    You should read more carefully the sections you bolded.  You'll see that's there's a significant difference.  operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones is exactly what people are referring to when they say Google data mines its customers to better target them.  Because THATS WHAT GOOGLE'S SERVICES DO.  Whereas Apple's wording makes clear, solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available.  That means Apple has the right to deal with your data only in order to facilitate the purpose for which you handed them the data, such as to store it as a backup, or to share it with those YOU CONFIGURED YOUR ACCOUNT TO SHARE PHOTOS WITH.  Huge, huge difference in these terms. 

    Why aren't Gatorguy and Bigmushroom responding to this one? I see that Gatorguy responded to every comment save for this one.

    Ummm, because I went to bed as I assume everyone else does? :)  

    When Google wrote "Google Photos will not use images or videos uploaded onto Google Photos commercially for any promotional purposes, unless we ask for the user’s explicit permission." they plainly and legally augmented the general terms of use to stipulate that user photos were not being used for Google commercial (money-making) and/or promotional (to publicize their other stuff or increase sales or to make everyone aware of other stuff) services without the user very specifically allowing that particular image to be used. The bolded section you refer to is the boilerplate wording from Google's general terms of service tha applies to all of their services. The additional clarification supplied by Google in response to concerns speaks to only Google Photos and the FUD that users had no control over what Google did with them. And that sir is the discussion we are having, whether Google Photos has the right to use your photo in any way they wish once you upload it. They do not. What was yours when you uploaded it remains yours.

    Now if you want to argue that if for instance you review a restaurant on Google+ or in Maps and Google then might use your review, perhaps even with your profile picture if you allow that, to promote that restaurant you won't get a counter argument from me that they won't. They well may 'cause that's what they do. They handle ad placement and promotion for businesses like your small neighborhood restaurant or car repair shop and big ones such as P&G, Nikon, GoPro and yes even Apple.

    Google Photos is a specific service where they've stated in writing they will not use that content for commercial/promotion purposes so they can't legally do so. Any rights that may have been conveyed under Google's general terms of service aren't enough to allow Google's use of your Google Photos for their own commercial purposes. Additional Explicit user permission is required. If you aren't contacted by Google to ask for permission to use some specific photo you added to your Google Photo cloud storage they they have no legal right to profit from it or use it to promote any other service or company or product.

    In short:
    When you uploaded your Google Photos did you give implicit permission for Google to use Google Photos to improve the service? Yes you told them they could. 
    Did you give Google implicit permission to securely store and catalog your Google Photos? Yes you did.
    Did you give Google the implicit permission to deliver your photos to those you choose to share them with? Yes you did.
    Did you give Google implicit permission to organize your collection for your image searches? Yes you did.
    Did you give Google implicit permission to modify or manipulate your Google Photo images to for instance put together a photo collage of a recent trip or to enhance any particular photo to deliver to you without you asking them to do so? Yes, you did.
    Did you give Google implicit permission to "rifle thru" several similar images to put together a "video" to deliver to you even tho you did not ask for one? Yes you did.
    Did you give Google permission to use that collage of your photos to promote any other Google service? No you did not.
    Did your give Google permission to use your uploaded Google Photos in advertisements for any other company? No you did not.
    Did you give Google permission to modify or manipulate or deliver your Google Photo images to P&G or BillyBob's BBQ or GoPro to use? No you did not. 
    Did you give Google permission to monetize your photos in any way? No you did not.
    Can Google do any of the above with your explicit consent? Yes they can
    When you signed up for Google Photos did you give explicit consent to any of those commercial/monitized or promotional / advertising uses for Google or anyone else's benefit? No you did not.  

    But you also give Google the right your monetize your other non-Google Photos data by accepting Google's general terms of use to establish a Google account. Two separate but related issues. Google isn't monetizing Google Photos and by extension the information that could be gleaned from them, nor did you give Google permission to do so. Legally they cannot.  At the same time if you use any other Google services after signing up for a Google Photos account they almost certainly are using some of your anonymized (not personally identifiable) data for commercial and/or promotional purposes, which of course is used in part to support free services like Google Photos and it's included cloud storage.

    And by the way photos are considered private and referred to as such by Google.  Private information is protected and it's usage restricted by Google in the same manner as Apple and many other (but certainly not all) companies.  Redundant written protection that applies to use of your Google Photos and support for legal recourse if they don't follow it.  I look forward to @foggyhill 's detailed response. ;)
    edited August 2016 singularity
  • Reply 58 of 69
    You should read more carefully the sections you bolded.  You'll see that's there's a significant difference.  operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones is exactly what people are referring to when they say Google data mines its customers to better target them.  Because THATS WHAT GOOGLE'S SERVICES DO.  Whereas Apple's wording makes clear, solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available.  That means Apple has the right to deal with your data only in order to facilitate the purpose for which you handed them the data, such as to store it as a backup, or to share it with those YOU CONFIGURED YOUR ACCOUNT TO SHARE PHOTOS WITH.  Huge, huge difference in these terms. 

    Why aren't Gatorguy and Bigmushroom responding to this one? I see that Gatorguy responded to every comment save for this one.
    Gatorguy already answered this question: there is a general TOS agreement that covers all services and then specific qualifications for services such as Google Drive and Photos. Your Google Maps edits won't disappear if you shut down your account but your photo files will be deleted from Google's servers.

    Both Apple's and Google's TOS are written in remarkably clear language. It's not difficult to find the relevant sections. People in this forum don't have to keep regurgitating Google's supposed TOS from old posts or other websites or rely on my own research (which I did in a few minutes): just look it up yourself. 

    singularity
  • Reply 59 of 69
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    The reality is Apple needs to boost the base storage. End of story. 
    Let me guess that people here will disagree until Apple does and then it will be crickets (see increasing RAM to 2GB).
    the iPhone wasnt updated to 2GB any sooner than it needed to be, thus "crickets". as i recall you were complaining about it needing more RAM for a long time, despite most people saying they had no problem w/ it on iPhone, that it was on iPad that it was more of a problem due to tab refreshing.
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 60 of 69
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member

    Rayz2016 said:

    A pointless argument you're making there. Apple was always going to increase memory, and they will increase it again, and I'd be surprised if you can find anyone who said that they will NEVER increase memory. It's not a question of if they do it; it's when they choose to do it. Did you predict that? No, thought not. 

    It all looks obvious to you and Gruber because you lack the information that Apple has. Cupertino knows precisely how many 16GB phones they're selling, and more importantly, they know precisely what the people who buy them are doing with them. If you don't know that then all you're doing is repeating what every armchair CEO – who also lacks this information – has been saying for years.

    And Apple also knows that when people say 32GB should be the base phone, what they're really saying is that they want a 32GB iPhone for the price of a 16GB iPhone, otherwise they'd just shut up and buy a 32GB iPhone.

    The reason Apple has kept the 16GB phone around is because it's cheap (for an iPhone) and the people who buy it are not trying to use it for anything too sophisticated. I know a couple of people with 16GB iPhones and they have never run out of space. I also know people with 64GB iPhones and they run out space all the time. I don't imagine that's the norm (or maybe it is – only Apple knows for sure), but that's the sort of information that Apple will use when they decide when to increase anything. They certainly won't listen to journalists and forum folk because we don't have the information to tell them anything useful.

    And like you, Google made this advert because it reads forums and uses that to come up with an advertising campaign. Is it ideal? Not really, but it's better than nothing. It'll get the geeks in an uproar, but what about Apple's real customers, the everyday folk? Well believe it or not, they'll probably just buy a 32GB phone if the 16GB is too small for them. They're not idiots y'know.


    Don't ever question anything Apple does because there's a reason for it and they're always the right reasons. wink 
    nonsense. it's more like, "You complain about things that dont affect most people, yet will inevitably be changed. Then you claim AHA! when they do. Nice work, bro."

    seriously. you and sog are the most absurd armchair-CEOs I've ever seen. it's like you actually believe you know things and how to do things that the the most successful tech company in the history of our species dont. it's self-aggrandizing arrogance... you dont have any data, no mountain of data like the one Apple collects and analyzes and undoubtedly uses as part of its engineering analytics. you just have some market specs and an anonymous forum to concern-troll on. rinse & repeat. meanwhile, apple has a roadmap and delivers on it... yeah, the macs are perhaps late, but as always, there is a reason for it we are ignorant about, and it's not Schiller twirling his mustache so he can screw you (even tho i dont think you even have a MP).
    edited August 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.