The iPhone 5C is only offered in an 8GB version. I can't imagine using one of those, especially nowadays. My first iPhone, the iPhone 4, came with 16GB and I was always having to shuffle things around to make way for space. So getting the 16GB version was a big mistake but I was new to the iPhone. I also learned that it's not even 16GB but around 12GB or so after taking into consideration that GB refers to the decimal millions of Bytes not the binary figure (actually I don't like this method and hard drives are quoted in the same way - it feels misleading) and installed apps, etc. Anyway, I can understand the frustration for some users. Yes there may be people who buy the iPhone5C and hardly install anything new on it but then there are others who... So I think Apple should inform users about how much space is truly available for the iPhone 5C and what his means in real life, and even help customers understand better about 16GB iPhones. And do this until Apple stops selling such ridiculously limiting storage capacities, especially in this day-an-age when memory isn't all that expensive.
It <Apple> severely limits the amount of storage on its devices and also charges the customers when they have to get more from iCloud -- and just so the customers can keep their devices running
This comment makes absolutely no sense. Apple makes its products available with a variety of storage capacities, screen sizes, and capabilities at different price points. It's then up to customers to select which product and model meets their needs at the price they are willing to pay. This is absolutely no different than how just about every other product in every other market is sold. If you want a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom house that's 3200 sq-ft and onsite RV parking you're probably going to pay more than a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house that's 1200 sq-ft that requires you to rent an RV storage unit. Are you saying home buyers should not be given the option of purchasing the less expensive and smaller sized home? Are the builders of smaller, affordable homes somehow "ripping off" their customers by not giving them more bedrooms, bathrooms, and square footage at no additional cost to the consumer? Would consumers be better off if home builders no longer built 2-bedroom houses and made the lowest end of the home market significantly more expensive? Apple could simply drop the lowest cost models, which would also raise their profits, but then some customers would no longer be able to buy Apple products.
The same logic of consumer choice applies to on-device storage versus cloud-based storage. You as a customer have to decide which combination of each best fits your needs and budget. If you travel a lot and need to have access to copious amounts of content on your device when there is no cloud connection you will have to purchase more on-device storage since the cloud isn't going to help you if you can't access it. Again, this is a consumer directed and needs-based buying decision.
I know, I know, what consumers really want is the highest capacity and highest capability devices at the same price as the current lowest cost device. Maybe throw in unlimited cloud storage for life too. How many companies are going to sign up for this business model?
This really comes down to consumer awareness and choice on one side and a product mix on the manufacturer's side. This basic formula has been in place for decades and seems to be working rather well in free market economies. Sorry to say, but this is basic marketing 101 and there is no conspiracy being perpetuated on anyone.
This comment makes absolutely no sense. Apple makes its products available with a variety of storage capacities, screen sizes, and capabilities at different price points. It's then up to customers to select which product and model meets their needs at the price they are willing to pay. This is absolutely no different than how just about every other product in every other market is sold. If you want a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom house that's 3200 sq-ft and onsite RV parking you're probably going to pay more than a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house that's 1200 sq-ft that requires you to rent an RV storage unit. Are you saying home buyers should not be given the option of purchasing the less expensive and smaller sized home? Are the builders of smaller, affordable homes somehow "ripping off" their customers by not giving them more bedrooms, bathrooms, and square footage at no additional cost to the consumer? Would consumers be better off if home builders no longer built 2-bedroom houses and made the lowest end of the home market significantly more expensive? <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple could simply drop the lowest cost models, which would also raise their profits, but then some customers would no longer be able to buy Apple products.</span>
The same logic of consumer choice applies to on-device storage versus cloud-based storage. You as a customer have to decide which combination of each best fits your needs and budget. If you travel a lot and need to have access to copious amounts of content on your device when there is no cloud connection you will have to purchase more on-device storage since the cloud isn't going to help you if you can't access it. Again, this is a consumer directed and needs-based buying decision.
I know, I know, what consumers really want is the highest capacity and highest capability devices at the same price as the current lowest cost device. Maybe throw in unlimited cloud storage for life too. How many companies are going to sign up for this business model?
This really comes down to consumer awareness and choice on one side and a product mix on the manufacturer's side. This basic formula has been in place for decades and seems to be working rather well in free market economies. Sorry to say, but this is basic marketing 101 and there is no conspiracy being perpetuated on anyone.
You give customers way too much credit. They have no idea what they need until they need it, and then it's too late. Having to play musical chairs with apps, photos, music, etc is simply not a elegant solution. Other OSs have been ridiculed for having these management needs.
You give customers way too much credit. They have no idea what they need until they need it, and then it's too late. Having to play musical chairs with apps, photos, music, etc is simply not a elegant solution. Other OSs have been ridiculed for having these management needs.
No, other OSes have been ridiculed for using 50% of the available space.
knowing what capabilities you need in a device is just part of ownership. Of anything, really. iOS devices are no different, and thus there's nothing to this suit.
Well, I have to admit that they (APPLE) aren't the same company they were 5 years ago - it seems that all they try to do now is FORCE YOU TO USE iCLOUD by any means necessary (they are removing iPhoto and Aperture and said the cloud version will be better!!?? Shouldn't we have a choice stay on your hard drive or risk your data to come "CLOUDY WEATHER"???) as I fell victim to this trap on the opening sale date of the iPhone 6+ (which I hated so much I returned it back to Apple - I felt like I was using a shoebox talking to people and it was just too big) but I have an iphone 4 yes an iphone 4 for the past 3 years I think and guess what I'm still using iOS version 6.1 and it works for me my iphone 6 is on order but my point is I only have 350 MB's left (megabytes) and yes my phone still works fine - but while I was at the apple store on iPhone 6 launch I just wanted to see if I get my iphone 6+ at the store and cancel my online preorder and this cashier chick just grabs my 32GB iphone with memory maxed out and starts doing an iCloud backup and I was like what are you doing??? And she tells me oh you said the reason you can't trade in the phone to get a discount was because you haven't backed up your data so it will all be on iCloud and I was LIVID!!! I told that stupid bitch I never use iCLOUD and I never want to use it - and how the hell are you "backing up my data if iCloud is only 5GB and my iphone is 32GB????? And her answer was oh it will back up the important data we could delete all the apps and you can just re download from the App Store when u get the new iphone - the backup never completed and she tells me oh just reconnect to your wifi network when you get home and guess what when I got home I had to upgrade my free iCloud to the 20GB version and pull out my credit card --- and on top of that I lost like 3,000 contacts because of what she did - thank god I use MYBACKUPPRO CONTACTS and had like at least the majority of them except for the last year!!!!!! I am starting to dislike apple and not trust them any longer!!!
I'm done ranting!!! HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!!!!
You're ignorant about how icloud backups work. You don't need 32gb of iCloud storage to backup a 32g device. The lady helping you was correct, your apps are already on apples servers and are automatically re downloaded when you complete a cloud based restore.
No, other OSes have been ridiculed for using 50% of the available space.
knowing what capabilities you need in a device is just part of ownership. Of anything, really. iOS devices are no different, and thus there's nothing to this suit.
I was referring to way before the OS space taking issue. Are iOS devices different from other devices, or not? That consensus changes conveniently.
You're ignorant about how icloud backups work. You don't need 32gb of iCloud storage to backup a 32g device. The lady helping you was correct, your apps are already on apples servers and are automatically re downloaded when you complete a cloud based restore.
But the data of said apps need to be backed up which often times is much bigger than the app itself.
The court may ultimately dismiss this case, but the lawsuit still brings attention to the unfairness. Indeed, Apple has its cake and eats it too. It severely limits the amount of storage on its devices and also charges the customers when they have to get more from iCloud -- and just so the customers can keep their devices running.
Huh? My device has 128gb on it, how is Apple severely limiting it? My dad's device has 16gb on it and runs great great. What are you talking about?
But the data of said apps need to be backed up which often times is much bigger than the app itself.
maybe, maybe not. But in either case that isn't what I was talking about -- if you read his post (he one where he referred to the employee as a "stupid bitch") he challenged her as to how it's possible to back up a 32gb device in 5gb on iCloud, and seemed to refute the idea that he didn't need to backup his apps 1:1.
I was referring to way before the OS space taking issue. Are iOS devices different from other devices, or not? That consensus changes conveniently.
Im not sure what you're talking about. The only ridicule of other OSes I've seen is their usage of available space -- the MS mobile devices that ate up 2/3s. the ridicule was not targeted to having to manage anything.
I agree with the lawsuit. I was unable to upgrade my mom's 8gb iPhone 4S to iOS 8 because there wasn't enough room to download it even though she had no apps, pictures or music on it.
"I'm suing Westinghouse, because I bought a 13 cu ft refrigerator and I can't upgrade it to hold 21 cu ft of beer."
"We bought a 2 bedroom house when we were newlyweds, and now we don't have enough space for our upgraded family of nine."
"I'm gonna sue Levi's because my skinny jeans from 1992 don't fit my upgraded body of 2015."
Apple never claimed your iPhone 4 could be upgraded indefinitely. Regardless of the amount of memory you bought it with. It worked when you bought it, and you were happy with the features and functions when you bought it. Apple's responsibility ends there. You want to upgrade to iOS 8, then it's gonna cost you. Or, you (and mom) can be satisfied with the purchase you made of a terrific product, and keep using it as-is.
ps: if mom has no apps, music, or pictures, then I bet she really doesn't need, and wouldn't use, the added functionality offered by iOS 8. Quit trying to upgrade her stuff behind her back.
pps: though I'll agree that Apple should allow us to disable the nagging red indicator that an upgrade is available, once we've refused it.
Yes, most of us in here know that the advertised size is not the actual size. You could call these plaintiffs morons. But....
I find most people are not aware that 16Gb is not really 16GB. I am always explaining this to them. It is not a problem only with Apple. The whole tech industry could do a better job of educating the public or perhaps change how they represent the capacities of their products. If you advertise a 1 TB hard drive for example, the actual available space to the user, should be 1TB. That would be a true representation to the consumer.
You give customers way too much credit. They have no idea what they need until they need it, and then it's too late. Having to play musical chairs with apps, photos, music, etc is simply not a elegant solution. Other OSs have been ridiculed for having these management needs.
. You can say that about any purchase. Always get a larger size if you can afford. That goes with houses, TVs, computers.
Apple doesn't advertise a perceived negative. If everyone else isn't required to advertise usable capacity, why should Apple.
Sammy has 16 GB. Iphone has 12. Sammy must be better.
There is no benefit to Apple as many customers see numbers without context.
So why doesn't Apple make the size a little bigger so that the usable size is equal to what they advertise? Since when does Apple just do what everyone else is doing?
Comments
That sounds very Android-esque.
That's not entirely true. Some apps can be stored on a SD card (as long as they're not processor heavy like games), and of course all your media.
This comment makes absolutely no sense. Apple makes its products available with a variety of storage capacities, screen sizes, and capabilities at different price points. It's then up to customers to select which product and model meets their needs at the price they are willing to pay. This is absolutely no different than how just about every other product in every other market is sold. If you want a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom house that's 3200 sq-ft and onsite RV parking you're probably going to pay more than a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom house that's 1200 sq-ft that requires you to rent an RV storage unit. Are you saying home buyers should not be given the option of purchasing the less expensive and smaller sized home? Are the builders of smaller, affordable homes somehow "ripping off" their customers by not giving them more bedrooms, bathrooms, and square footage at no additional cost to the consumer? Would consumers be better off if home builders no longer built 2-bedroom houses and made the lowest end of the home market significantly more expensive? Apple could simply drop the lowest cost models, which would also raise their profits, but then some customers would no longer be able to buy Apple products.
The same logic of consumer choice applies to on-device storage versus cloud-based storage. You as a customer have to decide which combination of each best fits your needs and budget. If you travel a lot and need to have access to copious amounts of content on your device when there is no cloud connection you will have to purchase more on-device storage since the cloud isn't going to help you if you can't access it. Again, this is a consumer directed and needs-based buying decision.
I know, I know, what consumers really want is the highest capacity and highest capability devices at the same price as the current lowest cost device. Maybe throw in unlimited cloud storage for life too. How many companies are going to sign up for this business model?
This really comes down to consumer awareness and choice on one side and a product mix on the manufacturer's side. This basic formula has been in place for decades and seems to be working rather well in free market economies. Sorry to say, but this is basic marketing 101 and there is no conspiracy being perpetuated on anyone.
You give customers way too much credit. They have no idea what they need until they need it, and then it's too late. Having to play musical chairs with apps, photos, music, etc is simply not a elegant solution. Other OSs have been ridiculed for having these management needs.
No, other OSes have been ridiculed for using 50% of the available space.
knowing what capabilities you need in a device is just part of ownership. Of anything, really. iOS devices are no different, and thus there's nothing to this suit.
You're ignorant about how icloud backups work. You don't need 32gb of iCloud storage to backup a 32g device. The lady helping you was correct, your apps are already on apples servers and are automatically re downloaded when you complete a cloud based restore.
I was referring to way before the OS space taking issue. Are iOS devices different from other devices, or not? That consensus changes conveniently.
If you're creating a new backup right now (in order to do the update) you don't need any codes from older backups.
But the data of said apps need to be backed up which often times is much bigger than the app itself.
Huh? My device has 128gb on it, how is Apple severely limiting it? My dad's device has 16gb on it and runs great great. What are you talking about?
maybe, maybe not. But in either case that isn't what I was talking about -- if you read his post (he one where he referred to the employee as a "stupid bitch") he challenged her as to how it's possible to back up a 32gb device in 5gb on iCloud, and seemed to refute the idea that he didn't need to backup his apps 1:1.
Im not sure what you're talking about. The only ridicule of other OSes I've seen is their usage of available space -- the MS mobile devices that ate up 2/3s. the ridicule was not targeted to having to manage anything.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2026692/microsoft-surface-pro-64gb-comes-with-only-23gb-of-available-storage-space.html
I agree with the lawsuit. I was unable to upgrade my mom's 8gb iPhone 4S to iOS 8 because there wasn't enough room to download it even though she had no apps, pictures or music on it.
"I'm suing Westinghouse, because I bought a 13 cu ft refrigerator and I can't upgrade it to hold 21 cu ft of beer."
"We bought a 2 bedroom house when we were newlyweds, and now we don't have enough space for our upgraded family of nine."
"I'm gonna sue Levi's because my skinny jeans from 1992 don't fit my upgraded body of 2015."
Apple never claimed your iPhone 4 could be upgraded indefinitely. Regardless of the amount of memory you bought it with. It worked when you bought it, and you were happy with the features and functions when you bought it. Apple's responsibility ends there. You want to upgrade to iOS 8, then it's gonna cost you. Or, you (and mom) can be satisfied with the purchase you made of a terrific product, and keep using it as-is.
ps: if mom has no apps, music, or pictures, then I bet she really doesn't need, and wouldn't use, the added functionality offered by iOS 8. Quit trying to upgrade her stuff behind her back.
pps: though I'll agree that Apple should allow us to disable the nagging red indicator that an upgrade is available, once we've refused it.
Yes, most of us in here know that the advertised size is not the actual size. You could call these plaintiffs morons. But....
I find most people are not aware that 16Gb is not really 16GB. I am always explaining this to them. It is not a problem only with Apple. The whole tech industry could do a better job of educating the public or perhaps change how they represent the capacities of their products. If you advertise a 1 TB hard drive for example, the actual available space to the user, should be 1TB. That would be a true representation to the consumer.
. You can say that about any purchase. Always get a larger size if you can afford. That goes with houses, TVs, computers.
Sammy has 16 GB. Iphone has 12. Sammy must be better.
There is no benefit to Apple as many customers see numbers without context.
Apple doesn't advertise a perceived negative. If everyone else isn't required to advertise usable capacity, why should Apple.
Sammy has 16 GB. Iphone has 12. Sammy must be better.
There is no benefit to Apple as many customers see numbers without context.
So why doesn't Apple make the size a little bigger so that the usable size is equal to what they advertise? Since when does Apple just do what everyone else is doing?
Because that’s not how it works. You can’t get chips that aren’t powers of 2.