Purported 'iPhone 6s' box suggests Apple will keep entry-level capacity at 16GB

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 118
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

     

    Remember, you aren't everyone. There are lots of other people with different needs to you so Apple are simply covering the bases,


     

    True. To be honest, if I were to purchase a brand new iPhone, I'd probably go for the 16 GB model, because I know exactly what I need, and I don't need to store a lot of things on my phone. Buying a larger capacity model would be a waste for me.

  • Reply 42 of 118
    16GB is the new 4GB. It is unusable on a phone that records 4K video, can download 4GB apps (which require over 8GB to install) and caches loads of data from the cloud. There is no technical justification for the 16GB base model and little financial reason (flash storage is now very cheap). Consumers know when they are being gouged. In a year when many people are asking if they really need to upgrade, that 16GB storage will help them decide.
  • Reply 43 of 118
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Apple should just completely disable the option for 4K video in software for the 16GB version. Anything else would be ridiculous.
  • Reply 44 of 118
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    The people whining that the base model should come with at least 32 GB are cheap, ignorant and selfish.

    16GB is enough for many people. There are many users who do not store a lot on their phone, and with the countless streaming options available today for music and video, 16 GB is just fine for many people. 8 GB, which Apple had on the lowest iPhone 5C models is perhaps a bit tight, but 16 GB is more than adequate for many people.

    If somebody needs more storage space, then they should purchase the next model up. It's as simple as that. The last iOS device that I bought (iPad), was 128 GB.
    I don't disagree with you on a certain level. I had always tried to get by with 16GB, but even now on my 5S getting my apps and related storage alone down to 16GB is a difficult task, and I don't even consider myself a big ap user, or a photo bug. So I stepped up and bought a 64GB phone, perhaps overkill, but now I simply never have to worry about storage again. And this is probably going to be the case for any long time iPhone user, they realized 16GB was not enough on their last phone and upgraded with their next.

    That said, where I think this is an issue is with first time users, which is all those Android and Windows folks, blackberry holdouts, and the like, or just a first time phone buyer. Apples goal has always been to make sure the user experience is paramount, but hitting a storage wall so quickly out of the gate is anything but. Now, this observation is directly proportional to the data. What I'd like to know is how many former 16GB users upgrade to 32GB or more with their next purchase? To your point, Apple surely has some data on this, and that's why they haven't made this move. But I'd also like to see the data on one-time 16GB iPhone users, and retention. More likely than not, anyone who uses an iPhone despite its limitations will most likely be sold on it. But there are definitely people who only see price, and after struggling with 16GB, see an Android selling for less with more storage.

    But 16GB is fine for my mother, who takes a lot of pictures, but She has no third party apps. And there's lots of people for whom this is likely still true. But a teenager buying their first phone under their own name is not likely to be happy with such limitations. Does Apple need to be concerned with that? Well I'll bet they are keeping a close eye on it. That's all.
  • Reply 45 of 118
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,520member

    It's a great business strategy. Would I own a 64gb iPhone 6 if 32gb had been the base model, not a chance.

     

    I suspect that the majority of those who bought the 64gb iPhone would have stuck with a 32gb base model.

     

     

  • Reply 46 of 118
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post



    Does Apple need to be concerned with that? Well I'll bet they are keeping a close eye on it. That's all.

     

    The situation now is not any different than it has been for many decades with Apple devices and computers.

     

    The entry level model will almost always represent the bare minimum, and it's up to the consumer to choose and buy the right model that fits their wants and needs.

     

    It was no different when I bought one of the first iMac machines back in 1998 or a PowerBook a few years after that. Choosing the lowest model always comes with certain compromises.

  • Reply 47 of 118
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    crudman wrote: »
    Your first point seems to agree with mine, so not sure what/if there's an argument here...

    Your second point is irrelevant to this discussion. I believe Apple made some of their software free in order to:
    a) Help ensure as many users as possible are on the latest & greatest for security, compatibility, etc.
    b) Entice non-Mac users into the ecosystem

    I don't think upping the base storage option on an iPhone from 16GB to 32GB has a similar impact. Again, if you want more storage it's available. Does it help Apple's margins? Absolutely...that's great for Apple and you still have options. 

    My point isn't options it's what Apple is charging. I think charging $650 for a 16GB phone is nuts. I thought technology prices were supposed to come down overtime. Yet that doesn't seem to be the case with iPhone.
  • Reply 48 of 118
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    rogifan wrote: »
    I thought you said Apple wouldn't keep last years phones at $100 cheaper because they would cannibalize the flagships? Also according to 9to5Mac Apple is keeping both the 6 and 6 Plus around.

    And I thought you were backing Mark Gurman's latest rumor:

    $450 -- 5S
    $549 -- 6
    $649 -- 6 Plus
    $649 -- 6S
    $749 -- 6S Plus

    So, for the same price as the new 6S, you can get a 6 Plus. For an extra $100 you can have a 6 Plus with 64GB, compared to the new 6S Plus with only 16GB for the same price.
  • Reply 49 of 118
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Pi**ing you off ? pi**ing off customers.

    You constantly seem p-o'ed with Apple. Chill.
    I only get pissed off over certain things. And this is one of them. I think this shows the greedy side of Apple, not the best products and services side. I'm certainly not the only one complaining about 16GB as the entry level storage. John Gruber complained about it last year. I guess he's a cheap bastard then too?
  • Reply 50 of 118
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sirlance99 wrote: »
    Apple has plenty of "cheap" customers. Who do you think buys all the free and $99 iPhone year after year. Cheap customers looking to spend the least amount of money. Which in turn they don't spend money in the ecosystem either. They are basically subsidized by the people that buy the higher end models and spend money in the ecosystem.

    I'm surprised Sog doesn't advocate getting rid of the $0 and $99 tiers. Just get rid of all the "cheap" customers. Who needs them anyway.
  • Reply 51 of 118
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    What a killer line up:

     

    iPhone 6S+ $299

    iPhone 6S  $199

     

    iPhone 6+ - 32GB - $249

    iPhone 6+ - 16GB - $199

    iPhone 6 - 32 GB - $149

    iPhone 6 - 16 GB - $99

     

    iPhone 5S - 16 GB - $0

     

    Wow. Damn.  Loving it.  Covers almost all price points, size, and storage options.


    Won't happen.  There will be three phones in various capacities:

     

    iPhone 6s starting $99

    iPhone 6s+ starting $199

    iPhone 6c starting at $0

    Maybe 5s also at $0.  Maybe.  

  • Reply 52 of 118
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    I am biggest supporter of Apple because they(employees) do deserve their hard work and innovation. But, for iPhone base model or model , they must move or add with 32GB. if not iPhone 6S, it must be in iPhone 7. God forbid if they still don't do than I will ditch 6 iPhones, one AppleTV, 2 Macbook Pro, 2 iPads in in my house in some place where can't be found and move to even Windows platform which i hate. People say why not move to 64GB. Well, sure. But when all other high end has moved to 32GB base over last couple of years than what's taking so long for Apple to do it. Moreover, we pay good price for Apple's great products. Ain't cheap.
  • Reply 53 of 118
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    John Gruber complained about it last year. I guess he's a cheap bastard then too?


    Must be..

  • Reply 54 of 118
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    evilution wrote: »
    Because there are millions of consumers out there who just use their iPhone for calls, texts and browsing. These people don't download a load of apps, have loads of photos and videos, so they don't need a lot of memory. They just want the cheapest upgrade they can get.

    Remember, you aren't everyone. There are lots of other people with different needs to you so Apple are simply covering the bases,


    I don't think your brain works correctly. How is offering a lower capacity phone going to piss people off? If they need more memory, they'll buy a phone with more memory. Yes, they took away the 32GB option but the moved the pricing structure down so you were getting 64Gb for the price of 32Gb. Surely that'd be the opposite of pissing people off, giving them something for nothing, although, after the U2 album, I could be wrong, there are a lot of professional idiots out there.

    People who buy top of the range Ford Focus don't get pissed off because there is a cheaper model with less features. You buy what you want, not buy the cheapest and whinge like a little bitch that you don't get things that other people did that paid more.

    Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough. It's not necessarily about what Apple offers. I just think their storage pricing is a bit of a rip off. Again how many people have 64GB devices that aren't using all that storage? My guess is a lot. Of course they changed the pricing scheme at the high-end because they have more margin to play with and they are able to upsell people. Why offer 64 for the price of 32 but not 32 for the price of 16? Because 32 is probably the sweet spot and Apple knows more people would go for that option so they have a harder time upselling people. Honestly I think if Apple wants to make consumers happy and grow market share their options should be 32>64>128>256.
  • Reply 55 of 118
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    The situation now is not any different than it has been for many decades with Apple devices and computers.

    The entry level model will almost always represent the bare minimum, and it's up to the consumer to choose and buy the right model that fits their wants and needs.

    It was no different when I bought one of the first iMac machines back in 1998 or a PowerBook a few years after that. Choosing the lowest model always comes with certain compromises.
    Again I don't disagree. The only question I would ask is whether the customer has enough education to make these decisions. Yeah, more is more. But it's relative to how someone will use it. People who bought PowerBooks in the 90s knew more about them than those who buy iPhones today. Only a small percentage had a laptop in the 90s, everyone has a cellphone today. Besides, it's one thing to buy a "free" 5C with 16GB, but it's quite another to run into essentially the same limitations on the latest full priced flagship phone.

    Is this Apple's problem to educate the consumer? You can argue this both ways, but I think in this case a smarter customer is a happier one. One can put this on the customer all day long, but in today's climate of youthful entitlement, such a strategy could backfire. For the actual cost Apple pays for 32GB, it seems like an optimal solution for customer satisfaction.

    And who knows, perhaps iOS9 is going to help increase the storage space limitations on a 16GB justifying keeping it around for another year.
  • Reply 56 of 118
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    saarek wrote: »
    It's a great business strategy. Would I own a 64gb iPhone 6 if 32gb had been the base model, not a chance.

    I suspect that the majority of those who bought the 64gb iPhone would have stuck with a 32gb base model.


    Right it's a great business strategy all you're concerned about is making more money, higher margins and higher ASP's. As a shareholder I guess that's all I should care about. But I'm also a customer so I care about more than that. With a better camera and 4K recording 16GB is not defensible, especially when Apple isn't terribly competitive with cloud pricing storage pricing either.
  • Reply 57 of 118
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    So now you know how to run the business better than Apple now?   Jesus Christ Mohammad 

    Big companies get complacent and greedy. It can happen to Apple too.
  • Reply 58 of 118
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post



    Is this Apple's problem to educate the consumer? You can argue this both ways, but I think in this case a smarter customer is a happier one. One can put this on the customer all day long, but in today's climate of youthful entitlement, such a strategy could backfire. For the actual cost Apple pays for 32GB, it seems like an optimal solution for customer satisfaction.



    And who knows, perhaps iOS9 is going to help increase the storage space limitations on a 16GB justifying keeping it around for another year.

     

    My opinion is that today's "entitled" youth and wusses that are out there can go and screw themselves with their perverted entitlement mentality. 

     

    I also think that this storage issue is not really a big deal, because I believe that in the worst case scenario that somebody eventually finds out that their phone storage is too little for their needs, then they will simply opt for a larger capacity the next time around. 

  • Reply 59 of 118
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    For the actual cost Apple pays for 32GB, it seems like an optimal solution for customer satisfaction.

    This. And for everyone arguing 16GB is enough for many people blah blah blah well if 16GB is enough I'm sure 32GB was too. So why then would Apple get rid of 32? Most likely because someone in finance or marketing looked at the data and said 'we need more customers in the middle tier'. I just hope Schiller and Apple PR are prepared for the shitstorm when 16GB flashes up on the screen.
  • Reply 60 of 118
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Why are you ignoring my profit margin comment?

    Apple makes about 22-25% profit margin.  Which is lower than Google and Microsoft.  Yet I don't see you grumble about how greedy Google/Microsoft is.

    Unlike Android makers Apple spends a TON on R&D and software/services development to make iPhones.  Android simply copies Apple and saves a ton of money on expenses.  

    So is 22-25% profit margins greedy?  Yes or No.

    Hell my brother makes a higher profit margin in his cleaning business.

    I don't use Google or Microsoft products so I have no reason to talk about them. Somehow Apple was able to bring to life iPod, iPhone and iPad when they weren't making nearly as much money as they are now. Somehow Apple wasn't concerned about profit margins when they decided to make most of their software free or when they drop the price on Macs to where you can get a really great Mac for under $1000.
Sign In or Register to comment.