Apple rumored to eliminate 32GB tier with 'iPhone 8,' with capacity starting at 64GB

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    I doubt Apple will produce more model in 7s then 8(or X).

    I would think as follow
    7s & 7s+ will be 64 and 128GB model only.
    8(or X) will be 128, 256GB only.

    There is no reason Apple create lower storage size on 8 to team kill 7s & 8.
    8 will be expensive as some analyst said then it will produce higher storage model only.
    If you want lower storage option then go to 7s,

    SE model will be use same as 6 hardware and produce 32 & 64GB.

    This still ended up 10 different iPhones.(7s& 7s+ 4 models, 8 & 8+ 4 models, SE 2 models)
  • Reply 22 of 47
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Soli said:
    As the largest NAND consumer this is heavily dependent on their ability to source the necessary components.

    If they do move to 64GB I think we'll likely see less concern for IOS 11's size, which could impact those with older devices.
    Yeah, I think this is more about availability of components than anything. People seems to think Apple keeps them away from 64G because they're somehow greedy when its mainly because they can't get their hands on enough of them for their production run.
    Soliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 47
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    As the largest NAND consumer this is heavily dependent on their ability to source the necessary components.

    If they do move to 64GB I think we'll likely see less concern for IOS 11's size, which could impact those with older devices.
    It's not about components. It's about marketing and greed. iPods were so successful in part because Apple invested in assuring capacity. That was then a problem for competitors as they couldn't get their hands on enough components, much less at the prices Apple was getting. 
    As usual you don't know what you're talking about and have thought through your irrational Apple hate. Are you really going to say "Apple is simpler being less greedy" when they finally bump their capacity again? Of course not, you'll just find some other reeks to claim they are greedy.
    Hmmm. I give you the reasoning based on historical fact and you still don't get it. Let me present this another way. The components exist. They are not bleeding edge. No one else in the industry will see a shortfall in the missing components. It must be pure coincidence that the second tier option on second tier models (the sweet spot, most demanded capacity) mysteriously vanishes as an option. This has been a constant in Apple's marketing strategy for a long time.

    I even gave you the information to debunk your component availability theory. When Apple has needed capacity in the past, it has invested to get it and at industry best prices.

    Shortages have been due to lack of higher capacity modules or external factors such as earthquakes etc.

    I call it greed because there is no other reason to deny users the ideal capacity at any point in time. The reason is that you are effectively holding users over a barrel.

    Or they go to the latest line with premium pricing or to last year's line but without the most demanded capacity and have to choose between not enough or more than they want.

    Next you will be telling me Apple doesn't include micro SD cards because there isn't enough production capacity to satisfy demand!

    Have you ever met an owner (present or past) that enjoyed their time with a 16GB iPhone/iPad? Just one.

    I have seen nothing but pure vitriol on those devices. Made worse when Apple decided to take up what little space was available to download iOS upgrades! Automatically, and in the background and without asking. Yeah, they changed that in the end and things are better now but it happened.

    And when Gruber questioned Schiller on the subject of woefully low capacities of those 16GB devices, Schiller claimed that it wasn't a problem because users had their stuff in the cloud. That's when Gruber bottled it. He should have followed up with 'what percentage of iPads had cellular capability? But he let Schiller off the hook.

    My guess is that the vast majority of those iPads were wi-fi only and cloud use would be severely hampered for regular cloud use.

    I've owned the 16 GB iPhone 4S as well as a 16 GB iPhone 6 and they're perfectly fine for what I do. I don't carry thousands of pictures or songs on it since I use it primarily as a phone. If I was planning to carry lots of media on my phone then I would have gotten the large capacity phone. Not unlike avoiding the Smart car dealer when looking for a family car. It's not like the people complaining about the 16 GB phones didn't have the choice of a phone with higher capacity.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 47
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member

    3) Not following your logic on wifi-only iPad being hampered. All of my iPads are wifi-only, and I always have wifi. Especially when updating apps or OS.
    The use 16GB as a base storage was almost universally criticised and even Gruber made a stab at Schiller on the issue. Schiller basically said storage wasn't an issue as customers were using the cloud for storage.

    The problem was there in that reply. The vast majority of those iPads only had wi-fi for cloud access. It is unreasonable to propose that users are using the cloud to get beyond storage limitations on the device itself. It might be ok for home use but the rest of the time you are not going to run around looking for hotspots to connect to via wi-fi. For obvious reasons. Gruber should have pushed harder on the follow up question but he didn't.

    Users were using the cloud, true but not to get around the low storage. They couldn't get around that without further investment so more often than not it meant making compromises. Not taking videos, photos etc. Not installing all the apps you need etc, etc.

    For those with 16GB AND 3/4G it wasn't a real solution either as few people have unlimited data plans.

    As for micro SD, there is no real problem. Never known anyone have one go terminally bad, they are cheap and mostly sit in the same tray as the SIM. Easy to swap out and replace, way fast enough and provide a true onboard solution to low onboard storage. On my particular phone the tray holder can even serve as a second SIM slot, converting the phone into dual SIM.
    edited February 2017
  • Reply 25 of 47
    This could make a lot of sense for several reasons.

    Apple is making a lot of money from services, and much of that is from selling apps. One of the best ways they could boost this business is to give people more space on their phones for apps, because lack of storage is keeping many people from putting more apps on their phones. It's good for developers, so it helps keep that community healthy, and it also provides a very nice revenue stream for Apple. 

    They need to keep their ASP up (one way of doing this is to have multiple price tiers, and storage is an easy way to differentiate the models) but this has to be weighed against the benefits of giving every customer enough storage to buy apps, music, books etc. to their hearts' content.

    And most obviously, increasing storage also helps generally keep their phones competitive with less savvy customers in a crowded marketplace. A lot of phone buyers have trouble distinguishing between the merits of the various models and platforms, but storage is a pretty simple metric that people are accustomed to from their experience with computers, and being stingy with memory just looks bad, especially since the price has come down so much in recent years.


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 47
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    This could make a lot of sense for several reasons.

    Apple is making a lot of money from services, and much of that is from selling apps. One of the best ways they could boost this business is to give people more space on their phones for apps, because lack of storage is keeping many people from putting more apps on their phones. It's good for developers, so it helps keep that community healthy, and it also provides a very nice revenue stream for Apple. 

    They need to keep their ASP up (one way of doing this is to have multiple price tiers, and storage is an easy way to differentiate the models) but this has to be weighed against the benefits of giving every customer enough storage to buy apps, music, books etc. to their hearts' content.

    And most obviously, increasing storage also helps generally keep their phones competitive with less savvy customers in a crowded marketplace. A lot of phone buyers have trouble distinguishing between the merits of the various models and platforms, but storage is a pretty simple metric that people are accustomed to from their experience with computers, and being stingy with memory just looks bad, especially since the price has come down so much in recent years.


    I like your comment on apps/services revenue/storage.

    It makes sense and I hadn't considered it either.
  • Reply 27 of 47
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    sog35 said:
    Soli said:
    sog35 said:
    I think this makes PERFECT sense as far as price:

    iPhone 7s - 32GB $650
    iPhone 7s - 64GB $750
    iPhone 7s - 128GB $850

    iPhone X - 64GB $949
    iPhone X - 128GB $1049

    So basically you pay $199 more to jump from 7s to X. 
    Where are you getting this info? What technologies and innovation are responsible for the $250 bump in cost?
    near zero bezel technology
    You manage to make things worse every time you attempt to speak positively enough them.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member

    sog35 said:
    My guess for the new tiers for Sept 2017...
    Yep.
  • Reply 29 of 47
    Soli said:
    sog35 said:
    I think this makes PERFECT sense as far as price:

    iPhone 7s - 32GB $650
    iPhone 7s - 64GB $750
    iPhone 7s - 128GB $850

    iPhone X - 64GB $949
    iPhone X - 128GB $1049

    So basically you pay $199 more to jump from 7s to X. 
    What technologies and innovation are responsible for the $250 bump in cost?
    What does that have to do with cost? If you want this phone, this is what it costs. If you don't, you can buy a 7s. 
  • Reply 30 of 47
    foggyhill said:
    Soli said:
    As the largest NAND consumer this is heavily dependent on their ability to source the necessary components.

    If they do move to 64GB I think we'll likely see less concern for IOS 11's size, which could impact those with older devices.
    Yeah, I think this is more about availability of components than anything. People seems to think Apple keeps them away from 64G because they're somehow greedy when its mainly because they can't get their hands on enough of them for their production run.
    I think that's BS. Apple doesn't not produce something because of supply issues. And I'm sorry but I find it laughable that Apple wouldn't be able to source enough components for a 128GB model. What's patently obvious is most people would probably prefer more than 64G but don't need 256GB so if Apple offers 128GB right away fewer people will buy the 256GB model. So Apple's solution is to only introduce the sweet spot when they've been able to upsell enough people into the higher priced model (and hoping that they fill it up to the point where downgrading isn't an option). It seems pretty obvious that's why we had 16 > 64 for several years. Look at how ASPs have gone up. That wasn't by accident.
  • Reply 31 of 47
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,645member
    sog35 said:
    My guess for the new tiers for Sept2017

    iPhone SE $299
    iPhone 7 $550
    iPhone 7+ $650
    iPhone 7s $650 - 32 GB
    iPhone 7s+ $769 - 32 GB
    iPhone X  $949 - 64 GB
    iPhone X $1099 - 256 GB

    Beautiful pricing, IMO.

    So why does an iPhoneX 64GB cost $250 more than an iPhone 7s 64GB?

    1. Bigger screen. 4.7 vs 5.8
    2. Better screen: OLED vs LCD
    3. Better camera: 3D and VR
    4. More RAM
    5. Faster CPU
    6. Nicer design - zero bezel
    7. Fake wireless charging
    8. Exclusivity

    And yes I think Apple should get rid of all 256GB models except for the X.

    If you want 256GB you need to buy X
    But will the X have 1 or 2 camera sensors?
  • Reply 32 of 47
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,970moderator
    sog35 said:
    I think this makes PERFECT sense as far as price:

    iPhone 7s - 32GB $650
    iPhone 7s - 64GB $750
    iPhone 7s - 128GB $850

    iPhone X - 64GB $949
    iPhone X - 128GB $1049

    So basically you pay $199 more to jump from 7s to X. 
    Why are you so obsessed with Apple charging more and more for products? It must be because deep down you don't think Apple has any other cards to play to increase revenues and profits other than making the iPhone more expensive. But do you really think people will keep paying more and more for their phone? I already have friends and family not upgrading because they think the prices are ridiculous.

    Actually, Apple continues to make models less expensive. You are equating all models under one monolithic iPhone. But that's not what Apple sells. Each year, for a couple years, each iPhone model is priced less, until it's ultimately discontinued. It's new models, with new technology and, recently, higher base storage capacities, that have been increased in price. In the real world, if you shop for a camera from any brand, will you not typically pay a higher price for the camera with a superior, and often higher pixel count, sensor? Of course you will. Same goes when shopping for vehicles from any manufacturer. They will sell you a low-priced model without navigation as a standard feature, and they also offer higher-priced models with navigation included as a standard feature, along with other niceties. An iPhone 7 is not the same as a two-year old iPhone 6. For that matter, an iPhone 7+ is not the same as an iPhone 7, even though they were released concurrently. Is it not appropriate that the 7+ carry a higher price?  Point is, Apple is not charging more for an equivalent product, like having your electric or cable bill raised; it sells a line of iPhones and if you want the iPhone I'm carrying, a prior year model, you can get a new one from Apple for less than I paid.  That's hardly charging more.
    edited February 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 47
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,544member
    What does that have to do with cost? If you want this phone, this is what it costs. If you don't, you can buy a 7s. 
    What doesn't cost have to do when Apple creates a product and figures out an price point based on a desired profit margin? You can't defend your ridiculous make believe as an unwavering fact by saying "If you don't want it, then don't buy it" because this isn't a real product outside of your imagination.
  • Reply 34 of 47
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,544member

    I think that's BS. Apple doesn't not produce something because of supply issues.And I'm sorry but I find it laughable that Apple wouldn't be able to source enough components.
    All. The. Fucking. Time.

    This notion that because Apple is so large they can will more components into existence than are available is juvenile thinking.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 47
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    Soli said:

    I think that's BS. Apple doesn't not produce something because of supply issues.And I'm sorry but I find it laughable that Apple wouldn't be able to source enough components.
    All. The. Fucking. Time.

    This notion that because Apple is so large they can will more components into existence than are available is juvenile thinking.
    Not really. We're not talking about something new that is restrained because fabrication processes are new, yields are lower, there is more difficulty producing them etc. We are not even talking about external factors like earthquakes, flooding, fire, industrial action or availability of any of the materials that make up the modules themselves.

    This is a consolidated piece. The only reason that it might be in short supply is that for some reason there isn't enough manufacturing capacity, but as I have already commented Apple sources its components well in advance and actively invests in increasing production capacity if it is deemed necessary.

    The rest of the industry is not showing any signs of shortage.

    A good guess is that Apple is not offering the part because it doesn't want to give users that option.

    Recent history has shown that Apple marketing simply drops the sweet spot on storage on their cheaper second tier phones with the sole reason of making users have to choose between for example, 16GB (woefully inadequate) and 64GB (probably more than they actually want or need at the time). Or was there a sudden and unexplained shortage of 32GB modules that only affected Apple and nobody else in the business?

    I think it's fair to say the decision was completely thought out, deliberatell and implemented to twist arms.

    Of course people will just say that nobody forced us to buy iPhones but that doesn't change the situation and that's why I call it greed.




  • Reply 36 of 47
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:

    I think that's BS. Apple doesn't not produce something because of supply issues.And I'm sorry but I find it laughable that Apple wouldn't be able to source enough components.
    All. The. Fucking. Time.

    This notion that because Apple is so large they can will more components into existence than are available is juvenile thinking.
    Not really. We're not talking about something new that is restrained because fabrication processes are new, yields are lower, there is more difficulty producing them etc. We are not even talking about external factors like earthquakes, flooding, fire, industrial action or availability of any of the materials that make up the modules themselves.

    This is a consolidated piece. The only reason that it might be in short supply is that for some reason there isn't enough manufacturing capacity, but as I have already commented Apple sources its components well in advance and actively invests in increasing production capacity if it is deemed necessary.

    The rest of the industry is not showing any signs of shortage.

    A good guess is that Apple is not offering the part because it doesn't want to give users that option.

    Recent history has shown that Apple marketing simply drops the sweet spot on storage on their cheaper second tier phones with the sole reason of making users have to choose between for example, 16GB (woefully inadequate) and 64GB (probably more than they actually want or need at the time). Or was there a sudden and unexplained shortage of 32GB modules that only affected Apple and nobody else in the business?

    I think it's fair to say the decision was completely thought out, deliberatell and implemented to twist arms.

    Of course people will just say that nobody forced us to buy iPhones but that doesn't change the situation and that's why I call it greed.




    Complaining about greed in a capitalistic society? You must be naïve.

    Actually, I agree with Soli. You are just a troll.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 47
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:

    I think that's BS. Apple doesn't not produce something because of supply issues.And I'm sorry but I find it laughable that Apple wouldn't be able to source enough components.
    All. The. Fucking. Time.

    This notion that because Apple is so large they can will more components into existence than are available is juvenile thinking.
    Not really. We're not talking about something new that is restrained because fabrication processes are new, yields are lower, there is more difficulty producing them etc. We are not even talking about external factors like earthquakes, flooding, fire, industrial action or availability of any of the materials that make up the modules themselves.

    This is a consolidated piece. The only reason that it might be in short supply is that for some reason there isn't enough manufacturing capacity, but as I have already commented Apple sources its components well in advance and actively invests in increasing production capacity if it is deemed necessary.

    The rest of the industry is not showing any signs of shortage.

    A good guess is that Apple is not offering the part because it doesn't want to give users that option.

    Recent history has shown that Apple marketing simply drops the sweet spot on storage on their cheaper second tier phones with the sole reason of making users have to choose between for example, 16GB (woefully inadequate) and 64GB (probably more than they actually want or need at the time). Or was there a sudden and unexplained shortage of 32GB modules that only affected Apple and nobody else in the business?

    I think it's fair to say the decision was completely thought out, deliberatell and implemented to twist arms.

    Of course people will just say that nobody forced us to buy iPhones but that doesn't change the situation and that's why I call it greed.




    Complaining about greed in a capitalistic society? You must be naïve.

    Actually, I agree with Soli. You are just a troll.

    Capitalistic? When I studied economics and political sciences we were told we live in mixed economies, but that's another story.

    Should that apply to the corporate values TC likes to promote? Possible tax evasion and purposefully removing a storage option your clients actually want, included?

    Perhaps we should redefine troll. I have detailed exactly why I feel there is not a component shortage and in subsequent posts, gone even deeper. Neither you or Soli have offered even a minimum counterargument. No possible reason beyond 'I think...'

    What's incredible is that this troll had absolutely no problem with that because this troll respects other people's opinions and doesn't prowl the forums with a torch in one hand and a pitchfork in the other, screaming FANBOY!! whenever he sees someone relentlessly defending Apple at any cost. This troll also refrains from insults and name calling.

    I have no issue with your agreeing with Soli but if you have anything to support the idea of why a component shortage may be the reason for any possible  missing storage options when new handsets are released I am all ears.

    I think it's greed. Accept my opinion as I accept yours. Believe me, I got off the iPhone train as soon as I saw I was being short changed in many areas. I do not regret it. That doesn't make me anti iPhone or anti iPad.

    It might pain you to hear it but I am an Apple customer. That gives me plenty of freedom to complain to my heart's content but never just for the sake of complaining. I always support my opinion. There are a lot of people right here who think just like me. In fact, for the amount of times I read someone has been called a troll, you could be fooled into thinking it's the majority.

    That freedom to complain is not the fruit of a 'capitalistic' society. It is the fruit of something far better.

    ireland
  • Reply 38 of 47
    HBW1HBW1 Posts: 40member
    Well, that's a good initiative. 16gb & 32gb had space issues, they fill out very quickly. 64 gb is a decent space size. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 47
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:

    I think that's BS. Apple doesn't not produce something because of supply issues.And I'm sorry but I find it laughable that Apple wouldn't be able to source enough components.
    All. The. Fucking. Time.

    This notion that because Apple is so large they can will more components into existence than are available is juvenile thinking.
    Not really. We're not talking about something new that is restrained because fabrication processes are new, yields are lower, there is more difficulty producing them etc. We are not even talking about external factors like earthquakes, flooding, fire, industrial action or availability of any of the materials that make up the modules themselves.

    This is a consolidated piece. The only reason that it might be in short supply is that for some reason there isn't enough manufacturing capacity, but as I have already commented Apple sources its components well in advance and actively invests in increasing production capacity if it is deemed necessary.

    The rest of the industry is not showing any signs of shortage.

    A good guess is that Apple is not offering the part because it doesn't want to give users that option.

    Recent history has shown that Apple marketing simply drops the sweet spot on storage on their cheaper second tier phones with the sole reason of making users have to choose between for example, 16GB (woefully inadequate) and 64GB (probably more than they actually want or need at the time). Or was there a sudden and unexplained shortage of 32GB modules that only affected Apple and nobody else in the business?

    I think it's fair to say the decision was completely thought out, deliberatell and implemented to twist arms.

    Of course people will just say that nobody forced us to buy iPhones but that doesn't change the situation and that's why I call it greed.




    Complaining about greed in a capitalistic society? You must be naïve.

    Actually, I agree with Soli. You are just a troll.

    Capitalistic? When I studied economics and political sciences we were told we live in mixed economies, but that's another story.

    Should that apply to the corporate values TC likes to promote? Possible tax evasion and purposefully removing a storage option your clients actually want, included?

    Perhaps we should redefine troll. I have detailed exactly why I feel there is not a component shortage and in subsequent posts, gone even deeper. Neither you or Soli have offered even a minimum counterargument. No possible reason beyond 'I think...'

    What's incredible is that this troll had absolutely no problem with that because this troll respects other people's opinions and doesn't prowl the forums with a torch in one hand and a pitchfork in the other, screaming FANBOY!! whenever he sees someone relentlessly defending Apple at any cost. This troll also refrains from insults and name calling.

    I have no issue with your agreeing with Soli but if you have anything to support the idea of why a component shortage may be the reason for any possible  missing storage options when new handsets are released I am all ears.

    I think it's greed. Accept my opinion as I accept yours. Believe me, I got off the iPhone train as soon as I saw I was being short changed in many areas. I do not regret it. That doesn't make me anti iPhone or anti iPad.

    It might pain you to hear it but I am an Apple customer. That gives me plenty of freedom to complain to my heart's content but never just for the sake of complaining. I always support my opinion. There are a lot of people right here who think just like me. In fact, for the amount of times I read someone has been called a troll, you could be fooled into thinking it's the majority.

    That freedom to complain is not the fruit of a 'capitalistic' society. It is the fruit of something far better.

    Greed is one of their corporate traits at this stage. It's one of Schiller's defining characteristics. I'd love them to call me a troll. That would be funny.
    edited February 2017
  • Reply 40 of 47
    Here's something I never understood: why doesn't Apple's competition offer a lot of storage for no additional cost, as a way to differentiate themselves from Apple? It seems that they themselves only up the storage when Apple goes higher. I thought storage was relatively cheap. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.