The only problem is the extortionate data rates on AT&T and other carriers. There's no way I'd rely on the cloud for my data if I have to pay for all the data transfer.
Now, if the system will let me sync data only via WiFi, it becomes a little better, but it wouldn't take long of being away from WiFi to run up a huge bill.
i've been grandfathered in
but they will throttle, they will but to be honest i've looked at my download amount and its never more than 1gb/ month, as time goes on it will increase but others will increase more
but they will throttle, they will but to be honest i've looked at my download amount and its never more than 1gb/ month, as time goes on it will increase but others will increase more
i wish i knew what the top 5% bandwidth hogs use
what is a hog anyway
So you've wasted roughly 2 full month's worth of data charges with that extra $5 per month you've been spending but not approaching using.
That extra $50 could have paid for a single month of 5GB of usage, or 5 individual GB of data overage (IE, 3 GB usage a month for half of the months since you started voluntarily paying more than you needed to pay).
One thing's for sure. ATT is super happy that you have decided to be so charitable
but they will throttle, they will but to be honest i've looked at my download amount and its never more than 1gb/ month, as time goes on it will increase but others will increase more
i wish i knew what the top 5% bandwidth hogs use
what is a hog anyway
To be grandfathered you have to have some some of agreement. What they did last time around was let you maintain your unlimited plan but there is no legal obligation that they have to continue to offer that for the next contract you enter.
What's the date on that blog? I'd like to see something more authoritative. I do think it's fair to think that the iPhone delay is because of a HW component supply issue, though I didn't think it was because of the NAND as I think that can be updated mid-cycle without affecting the product cycle. They have done that before.
What's the date on that blog? I'd like to see something more authoritative. I do think it's fair to think that the iPhone delay is because of a HW component supply issue, though I didn't think it was because of the NAND as I think that can be updated mid-cycle without affecting the product cycle. They have done that before.
The product was announced in April I think, with expectation for fall production. But I have no clue if it actually happened. Of course it's possible that Apple simply said "we'll take whatever you can produce, don't sell them on the open market" in which case there wouldn't necessarily be any more public info about it.
I barely have any lossless files, I just like music.
4 minutes per song = 240 seconds per song x 256kbps = 61,440kbps = 7.32MB = 0.0071526GB per song
170GB ÷ 0.0071526GB per song = 23,768 songs ÷ 12 = 1,981 albums, which I'd say is a minimum since people wit that much music are more likely to have a lot of content at 128kbps.
So what you're saying is that you want your entire home computer network's combined storage capacity in your pocket at all times locally on your phone, and you won't be satisfied until that's the case? How many hours are in your day? Do you have a job that you have to go to?
Do you need to have access to 20 different complete TV series, your entire movie collection, your entire music library, all the games you've ever played on an iOS device, all the apps you ever downloaded from the App Store, and all the pictures you've ever taken on your phone or imported to iPhoto?
Even if you are just a teenager from a well off family whose daddy has paid for all of your gadgets and you have no other interests than the digital world (and I'm not saying this is the case for you), how could you possibly be spending enough time out and about to where your phone is your primary computing and media consumption device 99% of the time? Isn't it much more enjoyable to watch a movie or TV show on a screen at least as large as the iPad's, if not a laptop/desktop, or better yet, a real TV?
In the routine of my daily life, I have a 55 minute train commute to and from work every day, which I consider longer than most. That gives me about 2 hours a day where my iOS device (in this case a 32GB 3G iPad 2) is my primary computing/media consumption channel. I have 1,000 songs, 20 games, 2 whole 10 episode (60 minute runtime) TV series seasons in 720p, all my Keynote and Numbers files for work, plus all my personal iWork documents, and about 40 other news/utility/productivity/entertainment apps plus their data and files on my device, and I still have about 12 GB free on it.
The point is this - on my two hour daily round trip commute - the only time in my daily routine where the iPad is my ONLY source for computing/media consumption/game playing...how on Earth would I EVER find time to actually consume the amount of data sitting inside it? If I choose to watch the TV shows, I can only get through two of those episodes, and not have time to consume any other media or data. If I am doing work using iWork, I could listen to music at the same time, and maybe get through the equivalent of two albums, or maybe 200 MB of music. With about 4 GB of music to choose from, I'm not really wanting for choice there. If I play a game or two, even if I choose to listen to my music instead of the game's, same deal there, lots to choose from.
I certainly don't have time to sift through my full 15,000 song library for a half hour to find that secure track I haven't listened to or thought about in years, or feel the urge to watch episode 6 of the third season of Curb Your Enthusiasm suddenly, or replay Across Age again after I've already beaten it - twice, or rewatch the Matrix for the 100th time. I'd rather watch that on my large screen TV at home anyway in full surround sound.
I am in no way trying to tell you how to use your device, but I mean how are all of you finding the time in your days to waste on watching video or playing games hunched over your iPhones 6-12 inches from your face for 6 to 8 hours a day??? (which is what I would consider the necessary time requirement to be able to notice that you don't actually have access to your entire digital database of media and programs...) Wouldn't your batteries die before that? Wouldn't you have access to more preferable platforms (TV or computer) when at home?
Don't you think it's boring to rewatch TV shows and movies all the time? Do you really routinely listen to more than say 10% of your entire music library? Do you really play and concentrate on more than 5-10 games at one time regularly until you beat them? Do you really replay those games more than 2 or 3 times - even the great ones like the Final Fantasies?
I tend to delete shows and movies from my device as I watch them, same with games as I beat them, why have them there if I'm not going to use them? All they do is create clutter, it doesn't even have that much to do with the space they take up. Who wants to scroll through hundreds of irrelevant videos to find what I want when I won't ever watch them anyway? Same with music and games.
I just want to understand this digital hoarding that a lot of you seem to partake in. Its like you all have closets full of old shoes going back to childhood, and garages full of old bicycles and lawn mowers.
Why do you need access to 100% of your stuff 100% of the time?
You took the words right out of my mouth, except I'm too lazy to write such a post.
But you nailed it. Storage needs isn't increasing exponentially anymore, as it once was. Yes, in general it's still going up, but for more people 16GB is more than enough, and will be for a while. The 2-3TB line is absolutely ludicrous. Yes, if I wanted to dump the entire contents of my home network on my iPhone, including all my HD movies, entire series of dozens of TV shows, hundreds of thousands of full resolution photos, all my saved disk images- yes, I may be able to reach that. But why the hell would I want to do that? I don't remember the last time I transferred a movie/video to my phone, bc it simply isnt the most ideal way to watch something, and even if I did, I would have what I currently wanted to watch, not my entire frikkin backlog and archived video collection. That's pretty much what takes up the most space. Apps/music/photos? Not so much. So yes, hoarders will want to be hoarders, but I dont see the mainstream becoming interested in hoarding, and therefore the argument about capacity right now is a moot point. For most, it's simply more than enough. And Apple caters and designs its products for 'most', not the extreme fringe who have much higher than average demands. I for one have no interest in having removable media in iPhones, as its simply something that introduces more complications, performance issues, and the need to micromanage content. RIght now, iPhones offer more built in storage out of the box than almost anyone.
4 minutes per song = 240 seconds per song x 256kbps = 61,440kbps = 7.32MB = 0.0071526GB per song
170GB ÷ 0.0071526GB per song = 23,768 songs ÷ 12 = 1,981 albums, which I'd say is a minimum since people wit that much music are more likely to have a lot of content at 128kbps.
Where did you get that much music?
~ 24,000 songs at 4 min ea - 1,600 hrs to listen to every song once. Let's say a person can afford to spend 4 hrs per day non-stop listening to music. That would take 400 days to go through the whole collection. But surely you want to listen to some songs many times? Anyhow, all this leads to one logical conclusion - no one needs to carry that many songs on a single device, no matter how much of a music lover.
~ 24,000 songs at 4 min ea - 1,600 hrs to listen to every song once. Let's say a person can afford to spend 4 hrs per day non-stop listening to music. That would take 400 days to go through the whole collection. But surely you want to listen to some songs many times? Anyhow, all this leads to one logical conclusion - no one needs to carry that many songs on a single device, no matter how much of a music lover.
Pshaw. Your logic and math have no effect on someone who is insane. What if he just wants to listen to 10 seconds of each song to impress his hipster friends with how much hipster music he pirated? Your math can't help you now!
~ 24,000 songs at 4 min ea - 1,600 hrs to listen to every song once. Let's say a person can afford to spend 4 hrs per day non-stop listening to music. That would take 400 days to go through the whole collection. But surely you want to listen to some songs many times? Anyhow, all this leads to one logical conclusion - no one needs to carry that many songs on a single device, no matter how much of a music lover.
Thanks. That was going to be my eventual point but I sort of lost my way doing the math.
Most people who want more storage seem to need the storage for music and movies. I'll say two things about that:
Spotify
Netflix
Now, I know what you'll say:
"I want lossless quality"
A. The difference between lossless and Spotify quality would be lost on 99% of users.
B. The difference between lossless and Spotify quality is negligible, even for audiophiles, without headphones that cost more than the iPhone itself.
C. If you're really that hardcore, then maybe an all-in-one mobile device will never suit your very specific audio needs. Get an iPod Classic and call it a day.
"But Spotify doesn't have all the music I want"
A. Not yet, it doesn't.
B. Maybe not, but you can always just sync the music Spotify lacks from iTunes and use Spotify for everything else.
The few people who would actually need 64 gigs on the iPhone does not make it worthwhile to add a third SKU, which would exponentially increase the complexity of distribution to both Apple Stores and retail/carrier partners. It's just not worth it to cater to such a small group. From a cost/benefit perspective, it would make more financial sense to offer a third color than a third storage option. *ducks incoming flames*
The few people who would actually need 64 gigs on the iPhone does not make it worthwhile to add a third SKU, which would exponentially increase the complexity of distribution to both Apple Stores and retail/carrier partners. It's just not worth it to cater to such a small group.
Gimme a break. We aren't talking about distributing fresh strawberries. If stock runs low, that's what the Internet is for. Stock can be moved from one store to another if demand is lumpy. Furthermore, claiming that would be such an issue for distribution assumes that demand will be large, which in another breath, you pooh-pooh. So which is it?
Gimme a break. We aren't talking about distributing fresh strawberries. If stock runs low, that's what the Internet is for. Stock can be moved from one store to another if demand is lumpy. Furthermore, claiming that would be such an issue for distribution assumes that demand will be large, which in another breath, you pooh-pooh. So which is it?
Clearly you've never worked in product distribution. Distribution is more difficult when there's less demand for a product because balancing low inventory without selling-out is very difficult. If I thought demand for the 64g would be huge, then the added distribution difficulty would be well worth it. Maybe I'm wrong and demand would be high, but I'd trust Tim Cook's judgement long before I'd trust my own or anyone else's on this forum.
"that's what the Internet is for"
Sure, locating excess inventory somewhere else in the channel is easy. It's the part when you actually have to physically move that inventory that gets expensive and/or complicated.
Look, I'm not against a 64g iPhone. Hell, I'd buy one instantly. But myself and most AppleInsider forum readers represent a very small, rabid subsample of Apple's massive audience. The fact that we all think a 64g iPhone is a no-brainer does not in any way represent popular demand.
Clearly you've never worked in product distribution. Distribution is more difficult when there's less demand for a product because balancing low inventory without selling-out is very difficult. If I thought demand for the 64g would be huge, then the added distribution difficulty would be well worth it. Maybe I'm wrong and demand would be high, but I'd trust Tim Cook's judgement long before I'd trust my own or anyone else's on this forum.
"that's what the Internet is for"
Sure, locating excess inventory somewhere else in the channel is easy. It's the part when you actually have to physically move that inventory that gets expensive and/or complicated.
Look, I'm not against a 64g iPhone. Hell, I'd buy one instantly. But myself and most AppleInsider forum readers represent a very small, rabid subsample of Apple's massive audience. The fact that we all think a 64g iPhone is a no-brainer does not in any way represent popular demand.
You're a rare breed. Someone who wants something, yet is mature enough to understand that your preference is not something that is logical/feasible for a company to release, and not in their best interests, therefore you do not demand it. If only more of the population had your basic level of cognitive function, and are able to get beyond the kneejerk I WANT argument by looking at the entire picture. And you're right, a 64GB iPhone makes little sense right now. If I were in Apple's shoes, I certainly wouldn't produce one.
You're a rare breed. Someone who wants something, yet is mature enough to understand that your preference is not something that is logical/feasible for a company to release, and not in their best interests, therefore you do not demand it. If only more of the population had your basic level of cognitive function, and are able to get beyond the kneejerk I WANT argument by looking at the entire picture. And you're right, a 64GB iPhone makes little sense right now. If I were in Apple's shoes, I certainly wouldn't produce one.
Clearly you've never worked in product distribution. Distribution is more difficult when there's less demand for a product because balancing low inventory without selling-out is very difficult. If I thought demand for the 64g would be huge, then the added distribution difficulty would be well worth it. Maybe I'm wrong and demand would be high, but I'd trust Tim Cook's judgement long before I'd trust my own or anyone else's on this forum.
You're right, I've never worked in product distribution. Have you worked at Apple in that capacity? Because otherwise, at least if you take retail experts' word on it, Apple is different from every other retailer in the universe in just about every way.
But assume that demand is too low to make it reasonable, even with Apple's ridiculous record of sales at stores. So make it an internet only product!
What, does Apple not stock products in its stores that are demanded by less than 5% of buyers? Does a huge chunk of buyers pick up an i7 iMac 27"? Surely you see that your stance on what Apple should do with a relatively low demand product is different what what they already do with other low demand products that they sell, don't you? You can pop 40 iPhones into a Fedex box and ship it to HQ for $100. What do you do if your 27" iMacs are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I plan to get a 32GB iPhone5 this month. Whether it's the $199 or the $299 model doesn't really matter to me. But yeah, I think enough people want one, and the technology is in place to make it happen, that 64GB will be an option.
You're right, I've never worked in product distribution. Have you worked at Apple in that capacity? Because otherwise, at least if you take retail experts' word on it, Apple is different from every other retailer in the universe in just about every way.
But assume that demand is too low to make it reasonable, even with Apple's ridiculous record of sales at stores. So make it an internet only product!
What, does Apple not stock products in its stores that are demanded by less than 5% of buyers? Does a huge chunk of buyers pick up an i7 iMac 27"? Surely you see that your stance on what Apple should do with a relatively low demand product is different what what they already do with other low demand products that they sell, don't you? You can pop 40 iPhones into a Fedex box and ship it to HQ for $100. What do you do if your 27" iMacs are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I plan to get a 32GB iPhone5 this month. Whether it's the $199 or the $299 model doesn't really matter to me. But yeah, I think enough people want one, and the technology is in place to make it happen, that 64GB will be an option.
No, I haven't worked for Apple distro. And yes, I realize they handle distro totally different. However, one of those differences is not that they like to complicate their supply chain with products that won't sell well.
If they're not dropping a 64g iPhone it's for any one or a combination of these reasons:
1. Engineering constraints (it won't fit with a new, thinner design)
2. Supply constraints (they can't get enough 64g units that are the right size)
3. Cost constraints (they can't get 64g units at a price that will keep the margins inline with other models)
4. Low anticipated demand (which would needlessly complicate distribution)
Here's a reason Apple's not deciding against a 64g iPhone:
4 minutes per song = 240 seconds per song x 256kbps = 61,440kbps = 7.32MB = 0.0071526GB per song
170GB ÷ 0.0071526GB per song = 23,768 songs ÷ 12 = 1,981 albums, which I'd say is a minimum since people wit that much music are more likely to have a lot of content at 128kbps.
Where did you get that much music?
A) I never said I wanted to carry it all around with me, just that a 64 GB iPhone would make curating my collection less of a hassle.
I own 1000+ CDs and have been using the Internet for like 12 years? Ist it really that hard to conceive of a music collection of a certain size? I'm not even as much of an outlier as you seem to believe; there's plenty of people with terabytes of music.
Yes, if I wanted to dump the entire contents of my home network on my iPhone, including all my HD movies, entire series of dozens of TV shows, hundreds of thousands of full resolution photos, all my saved disk images- yes, I may be able to reach that.
I remember the days when a 1G hard drive was ludicrous. Why would anybody ever need so much storage, unless they failed to clean out all the cruft and crap that they accumulated? Now, of course, one gig isn't even big enough for RAM.
Here's another perspective:
I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem.
No, I haven't worked for Apple distro. And yes, I realize they handle distro totally different. However, one of those differences is not that they like to complicate their supply chain with products that won't sell well.
If they're not dropping a 64g iPhone it's for any one or a combination of these reasons:
1. Engineering constraints (it won't fit with a new, thinner design)
2. Supply constraints (they can't get enough 64g units that are the right size)
3. Cost constraints (they can't get 64g units at a price that will keep the margins inline with other models)
4. Low anticipated demand (which would needlessly complicate distribution)
Here's a reason Apple's not deciding against a 64g iPhone:
1. They want to piss-off a bunch of forum trolls
You didn't address my post at all.
Use your expertise in retail to tell us all what effect a 64GB iPhone would have on sales of the 32GB model.
Comments
The only problem is the extortionate data rates on AT&T and other carriers. There's no way I'd rely on the cloud for my data if I have to pay for all the data transfer.
Now, if the system will let me sync data only via WiFi, it becomes a little better, but it wouldn't take long of being away from WiFi to run up a huge bill.
i've been grandfathered in
but they will throttle, they will but to be honest i've looked at my download amount and its never more than 1gb/ month, as time goes on it will increase but others will increase more
i wish i knew what the top 5% bandwidth hogs use
what is a hog anyway
i've been grandfathered in
but they will throttle, they will but to be honest i've looked at my download amount and its never more than 1gb/ month, as time goes on it will increase but others will increase more
i wish i knew what the top 5% bandwidth hogs use
what is a hog anyway
So you've wasted roughly 2 full month's worth of data charges with that extra $5 per month you've been spending but not approaching using.
That extra $50 could have paid for a single month of 5GB of usage, or 5 individual GB of data overage (IE, 3 GB usage a month for half of the months since you started voluntarily paying more than you needed to pay).
One thing's for sure. ATT is super happy that you have decided to be so charitable
i've been grandfathered in
but they will throttle, they will but to be honest i've looked at my download amount and its never more than 1gb/ month, as time goes on it will increase but others will increase more
i wish i knew what the top 5% bandwidth hogs use
what is a hog anyway
To be grandfathered you have to have some some of agreement. What they did last time around was let you maintain your unlimited plan but there is no legal obligation that they have to continue to offer that for the next contract you enter.
http://iphone.blogcommon.com/toshiba...n-the-iphone-5
What's the date on that blog? I'd like to see something more authoritative. I do think it's fair to think that the iPhone delay is because of a HW component supply issue, though I didn't think it was because of the NAND as I think that can be updated mid-cycle without affecting the product cycle. They have done that before.
What's the date on that blog? I'd like to see something more authoritative. I do think it's fair to think that the iPhone delay is because of a HW component supply issue, though I didn't think it was because of the NAND as I think that can be updated mid-cycle without affecting the product cycle. They have done that before.
The product was announced in April I think, with expectation for fall production. But I have no clue if it actually happened. Of course it's possible that Apple simply said "we'll take whatever you can produce, don't sell them on the open market" in which case there wouldn't necessarily be any more public info about it.
I barely have any lossless files, I just like music.
4 minutes per song = 240 seconds per song x 256kbps = 61,440kbps = 7.32MB = 0.0071526GB per song
170GB ÷ 0.0071526GB per song = 23,768 songs ÷ 12 = 1,981 albums, which I'd say is a minimum since people wit that much music are more likely to have a lot of content at 128kbps.
Where did you get that much music?
So what you're saying is that you want your entire home computer network's combined storage capacity in your pocket at all times locally on your phone, and you won't be satisfied until that's the case? How many hours are in your day? Do you have a job that you have to go to?
Do you need to have access to 20 different complete TV series, your entire movie collection, your entire music library, all the games you've ever played on an iOS device, all the apps you ever downloaded from the App Store, and all the pictures you've ever taken on your phone or imported to iPhoto?
Even if you are just a teenager from a well off family whose daddy has paid for all of your gadgets and you have no other interests than the digital world (and I'm not saying this is the case for you), how could you possibly be spending enough time out and about to where your phone is your primary computing and media consumption device 99% of the time? Isn't it much more enjoyable to watch a movie or TV show on a screen at least as large as the iPad's, if not a laptop/desktop, or better yet, a real TV?
In the routine of my daily life, I have a 55 minute train commute to and from work every day, which I consider longer than most. That gives me about 2 hours a day where my iOS device (in this case a 32GB 3G iPad 2) is my primary computing/media consumption channel. I have 1,000 songs, 20 games, 2 whole 10 episode (60 minute runtime) TV series seasons in 720p, all my Keynote and Numbers files for work, plus all my personal iWork documents, and about 40 other news/utility/productivity/entertainment apps plus their data and files on my device, and I still have about 12 GB free on it.
The point is this - on my two hour daily round trip commute - the only time in my daily routine where the iPad is my ONLY source for computing/media consumption/game playing...how on Earth would I EVER find time to actually consume the amount of data sitting inside it? If I choose to watch the TV shows, I can only get through two of those episodes, and not have time to consume any other media or data. If I am doing work using iWork, I could listen to music at the same time, and maybe get through the equivalent of two albums, or maybe 200 MB of music. With about 4 GB of music to choose from, I'm not really wanting for choice there. If I play a game or two, even if I choose to listen to my music instead of the game's, same deal there, lots to choose from.
I certainly don't have time to sift through my full 15,000 song library for a half hour to find that secure track I haven't listened to or thought about in years, or feel the urge to watch episode 6 of the third season of Curb Your Enthusiasm suddenly, or replay Across Age again after I've already beaten it - twice, or rewatch the Matrix for the 100th time. I'd rather watch that on my large screen TV at home anyway in full surround sound.
I am in no way trying to tell you how to use your device, but I mean how are all of you finding the time in your days to waste on watching video or playing games hunched over your iPhones 6-12 inches from your face for 6 to 8 hours a day??? (which is what I would consider the necessary time requirement to be able to notice that you don't actually have access to your entire digital database of media and programs...) Wouldn't your batteries die before that? Wouldn't you have access to more preferable platforms (TV or computer) when at home?
Don't you think it's boring to rewatch TV shows and movies all the time? Do you really routinely listen to more than say 10% of your entire music library? Do you really play and concentrate on more than 5-10 games at one time regularly until you beat them? Do you really replay those games more than 2 or 3 times - even the great ones like the Final Fantasies?
I tend to delete shows and movies from my device as I watch them, same with games as I beat them, why have them there if I'm not going to use them? All they do is create clutter, it doesn't even have that much to do with the space they take up. Who wants to scroll through hundreds of irrelevant videos to find what I want when I won't ever watch them anyway? Same with music and games.
I just want to understand this digital hoarding that a lot of you seem to partake in. Its like you all have closets full of old shoes going back to childhood, and garages full of old bicycles and lawn mowers.
Why do you need access to 100% of your stuff 100% of the time?
You took the words right out of my mouth, except I'm too lazy to write such a post.
But you nailed it. Storage needs isn't increasing exponentially anymore, as it once was. Yes, in general it's still going up, but for more people 16GB is more than enough, and will be for a while. The 2-3TB line is absolutely ludicrous. Yes, if I wanted to dump the entire contents of my home network on my iPhone, including all my HD movies, entire series of dozens of TV shows, hundreds of thousands of full resolution photos, all my saved disk images- yes, I may be able to reach that. But why the hell would I want to do that? I don't remember the last time I transferred a movie/video to my phone, bc it simply isnt the most ideal way to watch something, and even if I did, I would have what I currently wanted to watch, not my entire frikkin backlog and archived video collection. That's pretty much what takes up the most space. Apps/music/photos? Not so much. So yes, hoarders will want to be hoarders, but I dont see the mainstream becoming interested in hoarding, and therefore the argument about capacity right now is a moot point. For most, it's simply more than enough. And Apple caters and designs its products for 'most', not the extreme fringe who have much higher than average demands. I for one have no interest in having removable media in iPhones, as its simply something that introduces more complications, performance issues, and the need to micromanage content. RIght now, iPhones offer more built in storage out of the box than almost anyone.
4 minutes per song = 240 seconds per song x 256kbps = 61,440kbps = 7.32MB = 0.0071526GB per song
170GB ÷ 0.0071526GB per song = 23,768 songs ÷ 12 = 1,981 albums, which I'd say is a minimum since people wit that much music are more likely to have a lot of content at 128kbps.
Where did you get that much music?
~ 24,000 songs at 4 min ea - 1,600 hrs to listen to every song once. Let's say a person can afford to spend 4 hrs per day non-stop listening to music. That would take 400 days to go through the whole collection. But surely you want to listen to some songs many times? Anyhow, all this leads to one logical conclusion - no one needs to carry that many songs on a single device, no matter how much of a music lover.
~ 24,000 songs at 4 min ea - 1,600 hrs to listen to every song once. Let's say a person can afford to spend 4 hrs per day non-stop listening to music. That would take 400 days to go through the whole collection. But surely you want to listen to some songs many times? Anyhow, all this leads to one logical conclusion - no one needs to carry that many songs on a single device, no matter how much of a music lover.
Pshaw. Your logic and math have no effect on someone who is insane. What if he just wants to listen to 10 seconds of each song to impress his hipster friends with how much hipster music he pirated? Your math can't help you now!
~ 24,000 songs at 4 min ea - 1,600 hrs to listen to every song once. Let's say a person can afford to spend 4 hrs per day non-stop listening to music. That would take 400 days to go through the whole collection. But surely you want to listen to some songs many times? Anyhow, all this leads to one logical conclusion - no one needs to carry that many songs on a single device, no matter how much of a music lover.
Thanks. That was going to be my eventual point but I sort of lost my way doing the math.
- Spotify
- Netflix
Now, I know what you'll say:"I want lossless quality"
A. The difference between lossless and Spotify quality would be lost on 99% of users.
B. The difference between lossless and Spotify quality is negligible, even for audiophiles, without headphones that cost more than the iPhone itself.
C. If you're really that hardcore, then maybe an all-in-one mobile device will never suit your very specific audio needs. Get an iPod Classic and call it a day.
"But Spotify doesn't have all the music I want"
A. Not yet, it doesn't.
B. Maybe not, but you can always just sync the music Spotify lacks from iTunes and use Spotify for everything else.
The few people who would actually need 64 gigs on the iPhone does not make it worthwhile to add a third SKU, which would exponentially increase the complexity of distribution to both Apple Stores and retail/carrier partners. It's just not worth it to cater to such a small group. From a cost/benefit perspective, it would make more financial sense to offer a third color than a third storage option. *ducks incoming flames*
The few people who would actually need 64 gigs on the iPhone does not make it worthwhile to add a third SKU, which would exponentially increase the complexity of distribution to both Apple Stores and retail/carrier partners. It's just not worth it to cater to such a small group.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...fine+hyperbole
Gimme a break. We aren't talking about distributing fresh strawberries. If stock runs low, that's what the Internet is for. Stock can be moved from one store to another if demand is lumpy. Furthermore, claiming that would be such an issue for distribution assumes that demand will be large, which in another breath, you pooh-pooh. So which is it?
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...fine+hyperbole
Gimme a break. We aren't talking about distributing fresh strawberries. If stock runs low, that's what the Internet is for. Stock can be moved from one store to another if demand is lumpy. Furthermore, claiming that would be such an issue for distribution assumes that demand will be large, which in another breath, you pooh-pooh. So which is it?
Clearly you've never worked in product distribution. Distribution is more difficult when there's less demand for a product because balancing low inventory without selling-out is very difficult. If I thought demand for the 64g would be huge, then the added distribution difficulty would be well worth it. Maybe I'm wrong and demand would be high, but I'd trust Tim Cook's judgement long before I'd trust my own or anyone else's on this forum.
"that's what the Internet is for"
Sure, locating excess inventory somewhere else in the channel is easy. It's the part when you actually have to physically move that inventory that gets expensive and/or complicated.
Look, I'm not against a 64g iPhone. Hell, I'd buy one instantly. But myself and most AppleInsider forum readers represent a very small, rabid subsample of Apple's massive audience. The fact that we all think a 64g iPhone is a no-brainer does not in any way represent popular demand.
Clearly you've never worked in product distribution. Distribution is more difficult when there's less demand for a product because balancing low inventory without selling-out is very difficult. If I thought demand for the 64g would be huge, then the added distribution difficulty would be well worth it. Maybe I'm wrong and demand would be high, but I'd trust Tim Cook's judgement long before I'd trust my own or anyone else's on this forum.
"that's what the Internet is for"
Sure, locating excess inventory somewhere else in the channel is easy. It's the part when you actually have to physically move that inventory that gets expensive and/or complicated.
Look, I'm not against a 64g iPhone. Hell, I'd buy one instantly. But myself and most AppleInsider forum readers represent a very small, rabid subsample of Apple's massive audience. The fact that we all think a 64g iPhone is a no-brainer does not in any way represent popular demand.
You're a rare breed. Someone who wants something, yet is mature enough to understand that your preference is not something that is logical/feasible for a company to release, and not in their best interests, therefore you do not demand it. If only more of the population had your basic level of cognitive function, and are able to get beyond the kneejerk I WANT argument by looking at the entire picture. And you're right, a 64GB iPhone makes little sense right now. If I were in Apple's shoes, I certainly wouldn't produce one.
You're a rare breed. Someone who wants something, yet is mature enough to understand that your preference is not something that is logical/feasible for a company to release, and not in their best interests, therefore you do not demand it. If only more of the population had your basic level of cognitive function, and are able to get beyond the kneejerk I WANT argument by looking at the entire picture. And you're right, a 64GB iPhone makes little sense right now. If I were in Apple's shoes, I certainly wouldn't produce one.
Not mature, just old. ;-)
Clearly you've never worked in product distribution. Distribution is more difficult when there's less demand for a product because balancing low inventory without selling-out is very difficult. If I thought demand for the 64g would be huge, then the added distribution difficulty would be well worth it. Maybe I'm wrong and demand would be high, but I'd trust Tim Cook's judgement long before I'd trust my own or anyone else's on this forum.
You're right, I've never worked in product distribution. Have you worked at Apple in that capacity? Because otherwise, at least if you take retail experts' word on it, Apple is different from every other retailer in the universe in just about every way.
But assume that demand is too low to make it reasonable, even with Apple's ridiculous record of sales at stores. So make it an internet only product!
What, does Apple not stock products in its stores that are demanded by less than 5% of buyers? Does a huge chunk of buyers pick up an i7 iMac 27"? Surely you see that your stance on what Apple should do with a relatively low demand product is different what what they already do with other low demand products that they sell, don't you? You can pop 40 iPhones into a Fedex box and ship it to HQ for $100. What do you do if your 27" iMacs are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I plan to get a 32GB iPhone5 this month. Whether it's the $199 or the $299 model doesn't really matter to me. But yeah, I think enough people want one, and the technology is in place to make it happen, that 64GB will be an option.
You're right, I've never worked in product distribution. Have you worked at Apple in that capacity? Because otherwise, at least if you take retail experts' word on it, Apple is different from every other retailer in the universe in just about every way.
But assume that demand is too low to make it reasonable, even with Apple's ridiculous record of sales at stores. So make it an internet only product!
What, does Apple not stock products in its stores that are demanded by less than 5% of buyers? Does a huge chunk of buyers pick up an i7 iMac 27"? Surely you see that your stance on what Apple should do with a relatively low demand product is different what what they already do with other low demand products that they sell, don't you? You can pop 40 iPhones into a Fedex box and ship it to HQ for $100. What do you do if your 27" iMacs are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I plan to get a 32GB iPhone5 this month. Whether it's the $199 or the $299 model doesn't really matter to me. But yeah, I think enough people want one, and the technology is in place to make it happen, that 64GB will be an option.
No, I haven't worked for Apple distro. And yes, I realize they handle distro totally different. However, one of those differences is not that they like to complicate their supply chain with products that won't sell well.
If they're not dropping a 64g iPhone it's for any one or a combination of these reasons:
1. Engineering constraints (it won't fit with a new, thinner design)
2. Supply constraints (they can't get enough 64g units that are the right size)
3. Cost constraints (they can't get 64g units at a price that will keep the margins inline with other models)
4. Low anticipated demand (which would needlessly complicate distribution)
Here's a reason Apple's not deciding against a 64g iPhone:
1. They want to piss-off a bunch of forum trolls
4 minutes per song = 240 seconds per song x 256kbps = 61,440kbps = 7.32MB = 0.0071526GB per song
170GB ÷ 0.0071526GB per song = 23,768 songs ÷ 12 = 1,981 albums, which I'd say is a minimum since people wit that much music are more likely to have a lot of content at 128kbps.
Where did you get that much music?
A) I never said I wanted to carry it all around with me, just that a 64 GB iPhone would make curating my collection less of a hassle.
Yes, if I wanted to dump the entire contents of my home network on my iPhone, including all my HD movies, entire series of dozens of TV shows, hundreds of thousands of full resolution photos, all my saved disk images- yes, I may be able to reach that.
I remember the days when a 1G hard drive was ludicrous. Why would anybody ever need so much storage, unless they failed to clean out all the cruft and crap that they accumulated? Now, of course, one gig isn't even big enough for RAM.
Here's another perspective:
I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem.
No, I haven't worked for Apple distro. And yes, I realize they handle distro totally different. However, one of those differences is not that they like to complicate their supply chain with products that won't sell well.
If they're not dropping a 64g iPhone it's for any one or a combination of these reasons:
1. Engineering constraints (it won't fit with a new, thinner design)
2. Supply constraints (they can't get enough 64g units that are the right size)
3. Cost constraints (they can't get 64g units at a price that will keep the margins inline with other models)
4. Low anticipated demand (which would needlessly complicate distribution)
Here's a reason Apple's not deciding against a 64g iPhone:
1. They want to piss-off a bunch of forum trolls
You didn't address my post at all.
Use your expertise in retail to tell us all what effect a 64GB iPhone would have on sales of the 32GB model.